// Home / News / Broadband

Lords raise fears over Digital Economy Bill

By Barry Collins

Posted on 3 Dec 2009 at 09:51

Several members of the House of Lords have raised fears over elements of the Government's controversial Digital Economy Bill.

The wide-ranging bill covers everything from the future of Britain's broadband network to measures to deal with illegal file-sharing to broadcasting regulation.

PC Pro and leading industry figures met with several peers yesterday to discuss concerns over the bill, including how to get high-speed broadband into rural areas, fears over the threat to cut-off the connections of alleged file-sharers and the Government's pledge to deliver "2Mbits/sec" broadband to all by 2012.

The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them

The bill was also being debated in the House of Lords yesterday, with vocal opposition to many of the measures in the proposed legislation.

Lord Lucas expressed doubts over the Government's plans to disconnect illegal file-sharers, claiming that the entertainment industry hadn't done enough to encourage people to pursue legal methods.

"We need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation," he said. "The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better.

"It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry’s sluggishness. It is still slow."

Lucas also has grave fears over the use of IP addresses to identify alleged illegal file-sharers. "I am not at all clear that we have the technology to go beyond the IP address, which comes into my router, to identify which user of perhaps one or two dozen who have access, has done the illegal downloading," he told the peers.

"We need to be very clear that we do not tip people into losing their internet connection, or worse, on a technically fallible basis."

Lord Carter returns

Digital Britain author Lord Carter, who resigned from the Government this summer, also made a return to the House to defend the report that led to the Digital Economy Bill.

He made an especially impassioned defence of the 50p-per-month broadband tax, that the Conservatives have already said they'll scrap if they gain power next year.

Carter compared the so-called Broadband tax to the television licence. "As a country we are still broadly willing, with some notable objectors, to spend £142.50 per household per annum, with appropriate exemptions for certain households, in a hypothecated tax called the licence fee to provide us with high quality public service British content," he said.

"It seems a credible proposition that we should be more than willing to invest £6 per household per annum, with appropriate exemptions for certain households, to facilitate and accelerate our infrastructure upgrade."

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

Why is it that the unelected peers pay attention

And the MP's who we elected don't?

Welcome to democracy!

By cheysuli on 3 Dec 2009

Carter The Puppet More Like

Hang on a minute:

1) "Broadly willing" is I think is bit outdated Mr Carter. I've yet to meet anyone who happily pays the TV license. Especially when we know a fair chunk of it goes to bonuses and very unnecessary expenses.

2)"High Quality Public British Content" ... hmmm and which Channel is that on cos I wouldn't see the beeb is any better than most other channels if I'm honest and worse if I'm really honest and they seem to do well enough with advertisement revenue. I rarely watch it but yet I still have to pay.

and

3) "It seems a credible proposition that we should be more than willing to invest £6 per household per annum, with appropriate exemptions for certain households, to facilitate and accelerate our infrastructure upgrade."

Ahm credible to you who are getting backhanders from the music industry but not to everyone else you plonker. I would happily invest in my countries infrastructure if it would benefit myself and the country but it's only going to benefit BT who will then put up their prices as the new service will be faster so I'll have to pay for the thing twice and will not own any part on the new network or have a say in how it's used so again how am I benefiting Mr Carter!!

By koshthetrekkie on 3 Dec 2009

Can We Protect Copyright?

It surprises me that the arguments against the Digital Economy Bill usually revolve around an idea that we can't keep our wifi secure from hackers downloading, so that innocent people would get the blame. Or that we couldn't track who is responsible for using the network and downloading. These are given as the main reasons for arguing against the Bill and they seem like red herrings. It's possible, and easy surely, to secure wifi. Just as easy and important as having a firewall. There are free and subscription services anybody could have. It's not surprising the web giants like Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo are putting views against it - it's in the interest of many organisations to have relaxed copyright laws. But it's not in all of our interests - far from it. I write about this subject on http://www.blog.geid.co.ukand, although that's a company website, I write for others and know the software to let use secure our wifi easily and track who uses it is out there and easily available from various sources.

By AdeleWard on 8 Dec 2009

Can We Protect Copyright?

It surprises me that the arguments against the Digital Economy Bill usually revolve around an idea that we can't keep our wifi secure from hackers downloading, so that innocent people would get the blame. Or that we couldn't track who is responsible for using the network and downloading. These are given as the main reasons for arguing against the Bill and they seem like red herrings. It's possible, and easy surely, to secure wifi. Just as easy and important as having a firewall. There are free and subscription services anybody could have. It's not surprising the web giants like Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo are putting views against it - it's in the interest of many organisations to have relaxed copyright laws. But it's not in all of our interests - far from it. I write about this subject on http://www.blog.geid.co.uk and, although that's a company website, I write for others and know the software to let us secure our wifi easily and track who uses it is out there and easily available from various sources.

By AdeleWard on 8 Dec 2009

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.