DE Act unjustified - Internet industry hits out at Ofcom
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 08 September 2010
Strained, inconsistent, unjustified and full of misconceptions - proposals by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom for implementation of the 3-strikes copyright enforcement regime under the DE Act, come in for a litany of criticism by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
It's rumoured the the UK Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, voted for the Digital Economy Act so that he would not have to hear of it again. If that is true, he could not have misjudged it more.
The ISPs are finally fighting back, and have vented their anger in a barrage of criticism directed at the telecoms regulator, Ofcom. They accuse Ofcom of pushing forward the ill-thought-through plans of the previous Labour government, without consideration of the implications for their business or for citizens. They allege that Ofcom is failing UK citizens, distorting the market, and takes a
cowardly, lame-duck attitude towards the rights-holders.
Their criticisms relate to Ofcom's draft Initial Obligations Code, and are to be found in their responses to the consultation which closed in July. They come amid rumours of delays - reported by ISP Review - in the overall consultation process.
The ISPs say that Ofcom is taking a superficial approach to the appeals procedure. In particular, TalkTalk , the largest ISP serving consumers and small businesses, does not mince its words, saying that Ofcom's proposals are full of miscconceptions about the subscriber responsibility for alleged infringements.
BT and TalkTalk both argue an incorrect use of terminology in the ‘appeal' process. Subscribers will be contesting an allegation, which is different from an appeal. An appeal can only be made following a decision by a legally competent tribunal - and neither rights-holders nor ISPs are such a tribunal.
This is an important criticism, because the appeals procedure was the previous Labour government's proposed method of ensuring compliance with the EU Telecoms Package.
The ISPs argue that Ofcom's Initial Obligations code contains requirements which entail changes to their business models.
They also claim that Ofcom's proposals will create a market-distorting effect, and as such they contravene the regulator's duty to promote competition in the market.
There is a bitter battle being ignited around Ofcom's proposed 400,000 subscriber threshold, to determine whether or not ISPs will be obligated to enforce the 3-strikes copyright regime. This proposed threshold, as well as the exclusion of the mobile operators, will significantly alter the competitive boundaries within the ISP market.
There are further competitive implications surrounding the possible levels of copyright infringement which the ISPs are being asked to co-operate on. The ISPs claim that the rights holders - who after all lobbied for this legislation on the basis that their business is being harmed - can not state how many notices they will sending. This is important for the ISPs, who will have to develop, install and implement new large-scale systems for the benefit of the rights-holders.
It is unfair on the ISPs to be expected to design systems without a firm specification, especially in the current uncertain economic climate (and they will have an engineers' rebellion on their hands if they try to do it).
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 unjustified: Internet industry hits out at Ofcom http://www.iptegrity.com 8 September 2010
- Article Views: 6899
IPtegrity politics
- 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
- What? Will UK government ignore security as it walks away from EU?
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