The 84 million-a-year bill for DE Act
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 29 September 2011
The British government's assessment of DE Act implementation costs to justify the SI Costs Order presents a positive cost-benefit. But is the government painting too rosy a picture?
The government presented a one-off cost of £11.5 million, and "average annual costs" of between 6-20 million, against a benefit, calculated using Net Present Value techniques, of between £84m - £164m. But the government figures did not include the running costs for Ofcom. More significantly, they fail to include the costs of the Appeals Process. When those costs are factored in, the picture changes quite significantly. Using the
most reasonable of the government estimates, and based on the government's own target for the volume of notifications to be sent, appeals could add anything between £10.6m to £59.8 m to the cost of implementing the measures in the DE Act.
The running costs for Ofcom are estimated at £5 m per year. ISP costs are estimated to be between £1.5m and 5m.
Thus, using realistic figures from the government, the lowest estimated running costs for the DE Act are £22 million per year. But there is a potential for costs to rise up to around £ 85 m per year.
In that light, the government's stated benefit of £84-164 m looks much less attractive.
The government may be cavalier with the figures because the rights-holders will be footing most of the bill, with the ISPs picking up the tab for the remainder. From a purely civil service, administrative viewpoint, the government does not have to justify public spending. DCMS can relax in meetings with the Treasury.
But from the public interest viewpoint, it raises a serious question. The document in which these figures are presented, is being put before Parliament to justify secondary legislation. Even if the funds do not come out of taxes, they will - one way or another - come out of the what we pay for ISP services, and for music and films. The public will be paying, even if the Treasury is not.
And thus Parliament, as our elected representatives, is entitled to have correct and full information on which to base its decisions. In this case, it should have the full costs.
Please attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) The 84 million-a-year bill for DE Act http://www.iptegrity.com 29 September 2011 .
- Article Views: 23950
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