digital economy act

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I wonder where there might be some details regarding:

* o2broadband position/s(?) during the consultation period in regard to the digital economy act.
* o2broadband current position and plans for the future.
* o2broadband's initial reaction to the act. (..i noticed a reaction from talk-talk on http://www.talktalkblog.co.uk/2010/04/0 ... a-wash-up/ - is there any word from o2..?)
* o2broadband advice to customers, if any, in face of a changed context..

Thanks!

Any tips - much apreciated!

[Anonymous]

O2's response is on the O2 Blog.
http://blog.o2.co.uk/home/2010/04/o2-co ... y-act.html

[Anonymous]

prking - thanks for the gentle pointer..

[Anonymous]

There was a bit of a discussion on the blog, but apparently this post - http://blog.o2.co.uk/home/2010/04/o2-comments-on-the-digital-economy-act.html?cid=6a010535c50a83970b0133ec93f2e0970b#comment-6a010535c50a83970b0133ec93f2e0970b - heralded a slight premature, in my opinion, end to that discussion..

Here is the response I posted and still in "moderation" (??). Hard to tell as o2 are not very transparent about it..

>>>
We'll only ever provide customer information in response to a court
order and strongly disagree with any suggestion of disconnecting
customers.
>>>

Again, this is a very generalised statement. It indicates a possible
positive intent, however, the provision for response for court orders,
may render this intent - impotent.

We know that there are so called "law firms" out there that in a sense
farm IP addresses. As the following story points out: "Not all IP
addresses will result in a physical address because one machine can
generate more than one IP address and, in some cases, the ISP is
unable to find the real address.

ACS:Law estimates that for every 1,000 IP addresses it requests court
orders for it will get around 400 actual addresses. "
( from - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8570913.stm )

With the "digital economy bill" the process just got easier. Some
people ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/dea_timetable/ )
think that the government + "copyright" holders are just waiting to
see if ISPs will work to reduce downloads before stepping in big-time.

As I am now happen to weigh my broadband options, which are not
un-related at all from my mobile choices, I would like to have a
better idea as to who am I paying my money to, and what are you
planning to do with it in relation to my internet access.

I understand from your replies that you are not going to defy court
orders on behalf of your users. So what are you going to do apart from
stamp feet?

* Are you going to lobby harder for greater freedom of the internet?

* Are you going to lobby harder to get back to where we were prior to
the digital economy bill?

* Are you going, as the following article kind of suggests -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8570913.stm - to think of
setting up your own "legal" file-sharing scheme? (i.e. are you
planning to use this crisis to increase your profits..?)

Since I doubt you will reply the above questions, maybe you will
be kind enough to elaborate on how strongly you disagree with
providing information and disconnection.

* How are you going to be, in that regard, different to other ISPs -
if different in anyway?

[Anonymous]

Its such a complex issue that I don't think anyone can be sure of the ramifications yet. (for example we may see the end of public wi-fi hotspots, or they may become heavily walled gardens) I doubt anyone has decided on their full official response yet.

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree, prking. I think it is both simple and generally, with easily predictable ramifications. Simple, because the digital economy bill is there and it should not. If it is left out there, then sure, we'll have less hot-spots, more prosecution of innocent people - culture is a shared, not a secluded process - and more fear in society. (..people are already in a state of fear as to whether it is ok to download even perfectly "legal" material.)

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree, prking. I think it is both simple and generally, with easily predictable ramifications. Simple, because the digital economy bill is there and it should not. If it is left out there, then sure, we'll have less hot-spots, more prosecution of innocent people - culture is a shared, not a secluded process - and more fear in society. (..people are already in a state of fear as to whether it is ok to download even perfectly "legal" material.)

You say you disagree but then point out some of the ramifications!
I think the stumbling, hand-wavy nature of your argument is precisely why companies and people want to consider the impact of the act before making their public pronouncements.

[Anonymous]

prking - Maybe you want to consider not conflating slight elaboration and a bit of self questioning with stumbling..
Here is the simple, stupid and very straight fwd translation: I think the act is a mistake, it's clear we need more freedom online - not less. People that suggest to "give it time" are going to lose the terms of the discourse.

[Anonymous]

Agreed Sheepdog. Until we have time to digest the act and fully explore the consequences, we won't be able to give a considered re-action and seek its repeal.
Just adding some elaborate words, doesn't dress up the emptiness of just saying the act is bad.

[Anonymous]

Yes prking - like the great repeal of speed cams...