Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Major ISPs Challenge UK's Digital Economy Act

Posted by timothy on from the it's-all-an-act-isn't-it? dept.

Techmeology writes "TalkTalk and BT, two of the UK's largest ISPs, seek to legally challenge the UK's Digital Economy Act, which was rushed through parliament during its last days prior to the election. TalkTalk and BT argue that the DEA infringes human rights and places large ISPs (with over 400,000 customers) at a disadvantage. They also believe the DEA could conflict with existing European Legislation such as the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, and the E-Commerce Directive — the latter stating that ISPs are not responsible for the actions of their customers. The Act, which saw twenty thousand letters sent to MPs in protest, contains measures to see websites suspected of distributing illegal material blocked, and Internet users disconnected or reported to copyright holders."

15 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Wonders will never cease! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    BT doing something right for a change? Wonders will never cease!

    1. Re:Wonders will never cease! by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just code to have the Act applied to small ISP's as well as large, and nothing to do with repealing the act altogether like it sounds. It also scores brownie points for the public image of these big ISP's. Cat is out of the bag now, the chances that this Digital Economy Act will be repealed now are next to none - and I have a hard job believing that BT is really against this Act NOW, after it has been passed. If they were really against they would have kicked up a row well before this.

    2. Re:Wonders will never cease! by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What's the difference between BT and BP?

      One of them is number one most hated company in the UK. And the other one is something to do with oil.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Wonders will never cease! by sa1lnr · · Score: 4, Informative

      BT is concerned about customers privacy?

      They thought SFA about it when they conducted the secret Phorm trials on tens of thousands of their customers.

    4. Re:Wonders will never cease! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is just code to have the Act applied to small ISP's as well as large, and nothing to do with repealing the act altogether like it sounds

      Nope, not true. The act imposes a financial overhead on all ISPs that it covers. BT wants it repealed, because it will cost them money. The public want it repealed because it's a terrible piece of legislation. Their motives aren't the same as ours, but their objective is the same. Oh, and the major ISPs, including BT, did all object to this act before it was passed - they were ignored.

      The current government has promised to repeal stupid laws, and this is one that's getting a lot of votes on their site for suggesting laws to repeal.

    5. Re:Wonders will never cease! by spamuell · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they were really against they would have kicked up a row well before this.

      Um, they did: For example there was this letter letter to the Financial Times on March 9th 2010 criticising the Digital Economy Bill, which says:

      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.

      Oh, the signatories include the chairman of Talk Talk and the CEO of BT. A handy tip: if you're going to talk rubbish on the internet, make sure there isn't a public letter retrievable in about 2 seconds of googling which unambiguously demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

    6. Re:Wonders will never cease! by soliptic · · Score: 3, Informative

      OR, you need to brush up [thegateway.org] on the very basics of corporate saving face [wikimedia.org] methods. Oh yeah, A letter. They really fought this tooth and nail,

      OR, you need to brush up on the meaning of "for example", and follow GP's advice about 2 seconds googling before digging yourself in even further. He didn't say, or even imply, that the letter was the full extent of their efforts, so your cutting sarcasm about how much signing the letter taxed their PR team doesn't do much except make you look even more stupid.

      Oh look, first two links from the 2 seconds googling, they went to the High Court for a judicial review.

  2. Free Wi-Fi illegal by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the bigger problems with this act that few discuss is that it indirectly makes it illegal to operate a free Wi-Fi service. At the very least you would need to register with the Wi-Fi provider before you could use their service so they can pass on infringement notices to you otherwise they might be left holding the torch when the lawsuit hits.

    1. Re:Free Wi-Fi illegal by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly! That is a preemptive strike on their part, because in a few short years the technology will be viable for normal people to use a network of wireless nodes that completely bypass normal ISP's. Think wireless P2P "phones" relaying messages with only a few nodes connected to the wider internet at any one time etc, all conveniently outlawed now before they take hold and cut into the ISP/telco's market.

    2. Re:Free Wi-Fi illegal by 6031769 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the first time in human history technological progress will be effectively shaped and limited by the concerted actions of big corporate interests and a political power scared of the populace they pretend to serve.

      First time? Dude, where have you been for the last 10,000 years?

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
  3. It's because they're so big they don't like it. by matt_wilts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chect TFA - they are not opposing this because they think the *concept* is wrong. It's because the law would only apply to ISPs with more than 400,000 subscribers. They are worried that people will shift to other smaller ISP who don't do the monitoring. They're just worried about their bottom line.

    1. Re:It's because they're so big they don't like it. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, that's only half of their complaint. The other half is that the required monitoring would cost them money. Companies generally oppose laws that require them to spend more money. In this case, they're being required to spend money to do something that we don't want them to do, and some of their competitors are not.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:This is good... by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Trouble is that worldwide, politicians are relatively old people who know absolutely nothing about computers, the internet and whatever. They are often too old to have grown up with it. They have no time to learn about this new technology. They are one of the few people who do nearly all their talking and negotiating face-to-face. They still use paper copies of everything they do.

    So, I don't think it's surprising that the laws regarding the digital world completely suck and are nearly 100% dictated by the large industry and companies, and are in no way protecting the general public.

    Things may change - I just hope that it's not too late.

    And therefore, I cheer at any delay - a delay is a victory, because the longer we wait, the bigger the chance that our politicians actually understand the matter at hand.

  5. Re:con-lib coalition = no opposition in parliament by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the first time since, well, quite a long time, we have no sizeable opposition in Parliament.

    What? Were you born since May?

    After the 2005 election (results) Labour had 354 MPs, everyone else had 292. Any law Labour wanted, they got (hence ID cards, stop and search, etc).

    After the 2010 election (results), the Con-Lib coalition has 362 MPs, everyone else has 248. Any law Con-Lib wants they'll get.

    That's how the House of Commons works (regardless of whether you agree with it or not).

  6. Re:This is good... by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trouble is that worldwide, politicians are relatively old people who know absolutely nothing about computers, the internet and whatever. They are often too old to have grown up with it.

    That argument is getting old, too. I'm older than our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and have been working with computers since my youth and have been online (via bulletin boards) since my college days. These things go back longer than the young guns realise, and if politicians don't understand them then there has to be another reason.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?