Archive for the ‘regulatory’ Category

Industry unites against 120A #DigitalBritain

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

News is distributed so quickly these days (thanks to us ISPs) that by the time us ISPs finish doing the day job and get around to writing up the blog it almost seems like old news already. However in the interest of completeness (ish) of content on trefor.net on the subject of the Digital Economy Bill I’m going to post it anyway.

Following on from my comments last week regarding the outrage amongst ISPs over clause 120A the industry has united and written a letter published in the FT this morning.  The signatories are a roll call of the heaviest hitters in the internet in the UK and include ISPA – drafts were circulated to us for comment on Monday.

It will be simply scandalous if 120A proceeds after this. Coincidentally and as a bit of an aside one of the consequences of 120A would be potentially to slow down the aforementioned lightening distribution of said news.  Half the websites concerned could be blocked!

To the letter:

Sir, We regret that the House of Lords adopted amendment 120A to the digital economy bill. This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring.

Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option. In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.

The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the bill to date. It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences. Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking.

We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain. This debate has created tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities. All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.

Tom Alexander, Chief Executive, Orange
Richard Allan, Director of Policy EU, Facebook
Neil Berkett, Chief Executive, Virgin Media
Matt Brittin, Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland
Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Talk Talk Group
Stephen Fry
Jessica Hendrie-Liaño, Chair, Internet Services Providers Association
Jill Johnstone, International Director, Consumer Focus
Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group
Mark Lewis, Managing Director, eBay UK
Ian Livingston, Chief Executive, BT Group
Sarah Oates, University of Glasgow
Jenny Pickerill, University of Leicester
Mark Rabe, Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland
Paul Reilly, University of Leicester
Jess Search, Founder, Shooting People independent film makers
Ian Walden, Queen Mary, University of London
Tom Watson MP

  • Share/Bookmark

Cisco drives nail in music industry coffin with CRS-3?

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Most people won’t have given much thought as to how their email gets from A to B or how that video arrives from YouTube.  It just comes down the broadband connection which is plugged into the router next to the phone (or somewhere like that). Right?

Well today the worlds biggest router manufacturer, Cisco, announced their latest and greatest product.  It isn’t something that you will want to plug into your phone line though because it would take up most of the living room and there wouldn’t be enough room left for the sofa.

It would also be a bit of an overkill because this router, the CRS-3, is powerful enough to handle up to 322 Terabits1 per second, which  is roughly a hundred million times faster than the average UK broadband connection speed!

Cisco claims that the CRS-3 enables the entire printed collection of the Library of Congress to be downloaded in just over one second; every man, woman and child in China to make a video call, simultaneously; and every motion picture ever created to be streamed in less than four minutes2.

Uhuh do I hear you say?  So What??

Well you know everything has to progress and in fact regular readers of trefor.net will have occasionally picked up some relevant trends.

The first 100Gbps network rollout was covered here

News of the London Internet Exchange (LINX) carrying 2.5Tbps capacity here

Operators of 100Gbps networks will want to invest in this type of kit.  There aren’t many yet – in fact I only know of two but I’m probably wrong.

As more people do more with the internet the “network” has to “grow”.  The CRS-3 represents a $1.6Bn investment by Cisco to stay at the top of the tree – most of the equipment that powers the internet is manufactured by them. A lucrative spot that it won’t want to lose.

Who would buy it do you ask?  Well the CRS-3’s predecessor is the CRS-1 and Cisco claims to have sold almost 5,000 of these around the world.

As technology advances the rule of thumb is that the next generation gives you 10x the speed at 4x the price.  This is how costs come down in the long term.  Of course usage must grow to justify the spend but that it is doing.

So the owners of 5,000 boxes out there will at some time want to upgrade and with the starting price at $90,000 Cisco doesn’t have to sell many to start racking up the dollars. And you probably get barely more than the actual box for that starting price. You can bet that the high end version will approach seven figures (I’ll see if I can find out for later).

Anyway the CRS-3 announcement is an exciting one for geeks and if Cisco wants Timico to evaluate one I’d be happy to devote an engineer to it – try before you buy of course :-) News about the CRS-3 on the Cisco website is here.

1 Tbps = 1000,000Mbps (ish)

2 Bad news for the rightsholders trying to prevent illegal online copyright infringement.  Is this a huge nail in the coffin of the old business model of the creative industries?

Photo below is a CRS-3 – note no sofa in sight! 

Cisco CRS-3 - world's fastest router

  • Share/Bookmark

Is Pre-Release killing the music business? #Digital Britain

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

In the context of the debate going on over copyright protection in the Digital Economy Bill there is an interesting event happening tomorrow night at the Performing Rights Society in London.

Entitled  ”Is Pre-Release Killing Our Business?” tomorrow’s discussion is centred around the fact that in order to raise awareness the music industry conducts promotional campaigns for up to three months before a CD is released.  This stimulates demand for a product that is not yet available and it only takes one promo copy of a CD to be pirated and loaded onto a P2P network for that CD to be freely available which of course eats into sales at launch.

Because of this industry bodies including ERA and the MMF are calling for abolition of pre-release windows in their entirety. Tomorrow night’s speakers including the BBC’s Head of Music for Radio 1 George Ergatoudis, Martin Talbot, MD of the Official Charts Company, Ben Drury of 7 Digital and Emily MacKay of the NME.

It just goes to show that the whole fight against music piracy is something that has to be conducted across many fronts.

More details on the Music Tank website here.

It strikes me that there are so many discussion points/arguments surrounding the Copyright aspects of the Digital Economy Bill that it will be worth collating them all in an easy to access format – watch this space.

  • Share/Bookmark

Lets start getting sensible about Digital Britain

Friday, March 5th, 2010

You have to ask what’s the point!?

It’s so exciting when you come across announcements such as that made by the Government this week saying that they are attempting to get over 7 million people who can’t get online today, access to the internet. By 2014!

This is of course great news!

The plan is being underpinned by funding in a number of areas

  • Up to £12m to support the Plan through work of the Consortium for the Promotion of Digital Participation (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)
  • £300m for the Home Access programme to provide free computers and internet connections to 270,000 families with school children (Department for Children, Schools and Families)
  • £30m over three years for UK Online Centres under the Smarter Government initiative.

The release also reiterates the Government’s Universal Service Commitment which will pave the UK’s networks with good quality broadband so by 2012. Every home and business will be able to access a connection capable of at least 2Mpbs. BIS words, my italics.

Just a couple of questions really. The £300m will get roughly a million people online (assuming the 2.3 kids per couple which is what it was when I was a nipper but may have changed!). So that’s another 6 million to go? £42m would appear to be on the light side to get that additional number of people online.

But perhaps the 2Mbps USC by 2012 will do it?  We are well into 2010.  Time moves fast in this life. There isn’t a viable proposition on the table to be able to meet this USC. It isn’t going to happen with the current plans in place.

BT for example does it’s network capacity planning on a 2 year horizon. Even with a surprise injection of Government funding the roadmap is almost in place now up until the end of 2012. I know things can change but…

The panacea straw known as BET, grasped at by the government, will blow away in the wind. It has not excited those that live and love amongst the haystacks because it is too expensive and in any case is an “up to 2Mpbs” service, not an “at least 2Mbps” service.

All the statements we get regarding Digital Inclusion and Universal Service Commitment are well intentioned but there does come a point in time where you have to get serious about it and I don’t believe what we are seeing happening now is “getting serious”.

We need a real commitment to making this happen. It needs a Government Department of its own with strong support and a leader that understands the issues and can champion the cause.

Now it is easy for me to say this. I am not in Government and don’t have to make the difficult decisions. Where does the money come from for example?

What I am sure of though that it is the right thing to do.

The current Government machinations are just noises being made in the run up to a general election. They run the risk or rushing things through and making mistakes, as is being seen to happen now with the Digital Economy Bill.

The only sensible thing to do is call a General Election now, reset the clock on legislation and get on with making Britain Digital with a proper sense of purpose.

  • Share/Bookmark

Houston we have a problem – Digital Economy Bill amendment 120A #Digital Britain

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

The ISP industry is up in arms today as the House of Lords yesterday rushed through ill considered amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill proposing to allow rights holders to serve notice on ISPs to block access to sites considered by them (rightsholders) to have illegal content – music, movies, software etc.

This is a huge issue.  Rightsholders would be able to ask ISPs to block sites without a court order. If an ISP refuses and the rightsholder subsequently succeeds in getting a court injunction then the ISP will have to pay costs.

In this way the onus is on the ISP to determine guilt and not the court which ain’t right.

Courts in fact already have the power under 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act to grant an injunction requiring ISPs to block access to sites that contain unlawful copyright content.

97a strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of different parties and leaves the court free to consider each claim on its merits and independently of other factors.

Amendment 120A, however, abandons this balance, introduces a bias in favour of one party (rightsholders) and limits the court’s discretion to judge each case on its merits. There would appear to be no “equality before the law” under this amendment.

During the amendment debate comparison was drawn with the Internet Watch Foundation and the blocking of illegal child pornography sites. No sensible person would suggest that independently-assessed illegal child sexual abuse content can be compared with alleged unlawful breaches of the copyright of commercial companies.

Moreover the IWF blocking list is small and relatively cheap to operate. Amendment 120A could see the list of blocked sites grow to enormous proportions. Furthermore there is no mechanism in the Amendment to take sites off the list. The costs of operating this filtering will astronomical and it is fair to say will “break” the internet in the UK.

Another point is that there is no clarity here whether it is infringing content that will be required to be blocked, or whether it is an entire website. New market entrants that are involved in user created content of any type will be liable to being blocked if some of the user generated content is deemed to be illegal. Goodbye  innovation, it was good to know you.

Potentially this is the thin edge of the wedge. Once copyright breaching content filtering is required by law then it becomes a defacto mechanism for ‘other’ content to be blocked.

ISPs currently have the defence of “mere conduit” under which they cannot be liable for illegal content provided they take action as soon as they are aware of the illegality. This amendment chips away at that defence.

If Amendment 120A makes it into law it is going to cause real issues. The longer it goes on the more problematic the Digital Economy Bill appears to be. The industry Trade Association ISPA has put together a very strongly worded resonse to the Government on this which can be found here.

  • Share/Bookmark

hereditament and wireless fidelity

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

The great and the good of the WiFi hotspot industry descended on London today to meet the Valuation Office Agency. On the agenda was the fact that the VOA wants to slap business rates on WiFi hotspots.

The law says that rates are applicable based on the perceived rental value of any WiFi hotspot that uses brackets to support an aerial, the cabling to that aerial, the cabinet that houses the WiFi equipment and the value of the land that the aerial is connected to.

This “land” could of course be a single brick 20 feet in the air, but there is gold in them there bricks!

The VOA is undergoing this exercise it seems a) because they are obliged to by law and b) if they don’t they are likely to be subjected to a judicial review at the request of mobile operators who are themselves charged rates for their masts and have a track record of crying foul to get a level playing field .

The bad news is that if they can get the work done before 31st March 2010 the VOA can back date the rates to 2005! This rolls on a year if they can finish the job by 31st March 2011 but if they miss the 2011 date they lose 5 years worth of rates which can then only be backdated a year. So there is pressure on them to get the job done.

Having stared blankly at a wall for two years the VOA has, in desperation, called in the operator community to find out how to go about it.

The meeting started very heatedly with the three surveyors from VOA being bombarded with angry/concerned questions from participant companies that included commercial organisations such as Timico (who of course made a calm and measured contribution to the discussion) , BT Openzone, The Cloud and SwissCom together with those whose role was somewhat more charitable, for example with the provision of wireless broadband access to rural communities.

The problem for the latter is that the VOA can’t differentiate between a service that is provided on a “for profit” basis and the charities. All they are concerned about is the rateable value. Even if a site is provided free of charge they still look around at what a free market rent might be to come up with the value. There is no “fairness” involved here.

Another problem is that no one at the VOA  has a clue what the rental value of a WiFi hotspot aerial site is.

In the absence of any real information the VOA has drawn a line in the sand at £100, which at the current 46.6 pence in the pound being charged for business rates could amount to a significant total cost for many operators, especially if backdated. The £100 is a challenge for operators to provide them with real value information and is based on a sum agreed with Traffic Master for each of their cameras (after two years of heel dragging by TM).

The whole subject is hugely complicated. There are millions of hotspots out there with potentially many different rental scenarios for variable valuations. For example a lamppost in the City of London will be worth more than one in Carlisle (random place not in London).

There are 80 valuations offices in the UK and the team we met today will have the task of training inspectors in each of these offices to go out and value each hotspot. Once they have worked out how to do it themselves that is.

Many of the valuations are likely to be very low – £25 or less say. Where do you draw the line at which sites to go and value, remembering that a £25 RV would only be worth twelve quid a year on the rates.

At this point I could feel a slight sigh of relief amongst the operators – this looked like a very lengthy job. The VOA is, however, trying to find a shortcut.

There are some get out of jail free cards that only really came to the top of the deck towards the end of the meeting.

The four criteria being applied to the decision as to whether a hotspot is rateable are whether the site is beneficial, exclusive, active and not too transient. I’m not a lawyer and not about to expound on lengthy definitions for each word here but “exclusive” and “not too transient” will have helped many of us in the room.

If a hotspot is a normal wireless router, in a café or a hotel for example then it is considered that this router can be moved from one space on a counter to another. This means that it is transient and means that this hotspot is not rateable.

If a hotspot can be switched off by someone other than the operator, for example by the café owner switching it off at the wall before he goes home, then this also means that probably no rates will be payable.

So community networks operating as a “charitable” type of service should be able to get around having to pay rates just by making sure that the farmer/librarian/good neighbour hosting the particular hotspot has the ability to switch it off at the wall. Obviously this doesn’t point to 100% reliability but I suspect that this is the scenario actually seen in many community networks already.

As I said the VOA is in a hurry and there is therefore a danger that in rushing things they will get it wrong. Tune in to trefor.net for more information as it happens, hot off the wireless wire.

PS The meeting was billed as a Wireless Fidelity Conference – quaint huh? I’m not going to tell you what hereditament means – Google it :-)

  • Share/Bookmark

Naked DSL? Not on your Nellie says Ofcom!

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

I hear that according to Ofcom naked DSL is officially dead in the UK water and that they are not interested in pursuing it. Naked DSL is the product that would allow VoIP providers to offer voice over broadband without having to pay for the voice element of the underlying analogue phone line.

If a consumer or business is only using his telephone line as a means to carry ADSL and not to make phone calls they don’t need the cost element of the underlying line that enables telephony. This is available in some other countries but not in the UK!

Not a forward step from Ofcom – and this is coming from someone who sells both analogue lines, ADSL and VoIP.

On the other hand one of the bugbears of VoIP pure play operators such as Vonage is that when a customer wants to port his telephony service to them, from BT say, the act of doing so effectively cuts off the original phone line and by default the broadband connection and the VoIP service that would run over it. Anti-competitive I’d say.

The Office of the Telecoms Adjudicator (OTA) is championing a change here and we can hopefully expect that this is something we will see by the end of 2010. The notional solution is that BT will provide a new “ghost” number for the analogue line so that it doesn’t get cut off.

  • Share/Bookmark

Digital Economy Bill, hotels and Andrew Dismore MP on human rights

Friday, February 5th, 2010

The Digital Economy Debate has generated a flurry of responses today – no doubt people getting messages out of the way before the rugby this weekend!

Firstly the UK hotel industry, via its mouthpiece the British Hospitality Association, has issued a press release expressing grave concern that their members could have their internet access cut off because of the illegal activities of naughty guests.

The miscreants will of course have long checked out by the time the long arm of the law reached out to behind the reception desk.

From personal experience (of having hundreds of hotels as customers and not of Torrenting whilst staying at them) hotels are particularly prone to guests taking advantage of the internet in the room to download material via P2P.

A long long time ago, way before Timico, I worked for Mitel who had at that time something like 80% of the UK hotels using their phone systems. Research in those days suggested that 90% of all internet surfing out of hotels was to pornographic websites. It was more unusual for people to have broadband at home and access from the office was strictly filtered.

So the BHA now joins the Educational system in wanting immunity from prosecution under the Digital Economy Bill. McDonalds will be next. At this rate a large part of the UK broadband estate will be seeking immunity from the Bill.

Also speaking out today is Parliament’s own Joint Select Committee on Human Rights which says the Government’s response to the problem of illegal file-sharing in the Digital Economy Bill may have created over-broad powers.

Andrew Dismore MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “Illegal file sharing is itself a breach of important rights, but the concern we have with this Bill is that it lacks detail. It has been difficult, even in the narrow area we have focussed on, to get a clear picture of the scope and impact of the provisions. The internet is constantly creating new challenges for policy-makers but that cannot justify ill-defined or sweeping legislative responses, especially when there is the possibility of restricting freedom of expression or the privacy of individual users.”

At least people are starting to shout louder. Andrew Dismore MP seems to have his head screwed on.

If you want to keep up to speed on the debate in the Lords go here.

  • Share/Bookmark

I don’t need broadband – I use my neighbour’s WiFi – problems with Digital Economy Bill

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

I was talking to some people today about what type of broadband they had.  One of them surprisingly said she didn’t have broadband. I found this astonishing.  However the truth came out when she told me she just used next door’s which was unsecured.

Whatever you think of the morals of this it is a real life pointer as to the problems of proof when it comes to accusing a broadband owner of illegal downloading. 

I present here, for your delectation, the winner of the “dontdisconnectus” “Sing our Petition” competition.  The opposition to the Digital Economy Bill is building but it has some way to go yet I feel.

  • Share/Bookmark

report your terrorist website

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has launched a public reporting webpage (on the Directgov website) for terrorist-related material found on the internet.

The public can report URLs of suspected terrorist material direct to a police unit who will investigate. If the website is found to be in breach of the Terrorism Act 2006 the police will issue a Section 3 Notice to have the content modified or removed presuming it is hosted in the UK.

The type of content users may report can be found here on the Home Office website and the reporting page itself here.

As part of the fight against terrorism this must be good though I imagine it will be difficult to maintain an adequate level of publicity for the scheme so that people know where to look to report a website.

Also the savvy terrorist will use hosting provider in a country that doesn’t care or doesn’t have the same laws so unless this initiative was conducted on a global scale it will probably only have a small effect.

  • Share/Bookmark