Britain's Digital Economy Bill will cost ISPs £500M, knock 40K poor households offline

Discuss

13 Responses to “Britain's Digital Economy Bill will cost ISPs £500M, knock 40K poor households offline”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Anon @ #8: “MD1500: £500 million is half a billion rather than £5 billion, so it’s half a billion for a £1.7 billion return. in any case, the objections lie beyond a simple cost benefit analysis”

    Eh, that’s £500m PER YEAR for a return of £1.7b OVER 10 YEARS, or £170m/year.

  2. cde says:

    If we were just asked to pay a £30 annual fee for truly unrestricted UK broadband access, we might actually be in favour of the same cost.

    About 60% of ~25m households (those with broadband) is at least 15,000,000 30-pound payments – and increasing daily. That’s >£450 million in extra annual big-media revenue without policing, legislating on or damaging (throttling etc.) the Internet’s infrastructure.

    I don’t like how we arrived at this point, but if we have to pay £30 a year let’s call it what it is – another fee for the end user to cover. A lot of people dislike the (much larger) TV license, but pay it anyway.

    There’s a thought – stick about £20 on the TV license and call it an “audience license”. The payment/penalty systems are already in place, and ISPs have our addresses so can issue license notices (I believe TV shops awkwardly have to ask for this info for license checking?).

  3. Anonymous says:

    American readers might be confused by the verb “to table.” In the context of parliamentary procedure, e.g. Robert’s Rules of Order, when you “table” a proposal, or “lay [it] on the table,” you take it OUT of consideration, perhaps permanently. I gather the UK Business Secretary has done the opposite.

  4. donaleen says:

    Cory’s back…. Yeah!!!!!

  5. Simon Bradshaw says:

    Many of the comments to the article Cory links to seem to assume that this is an annual flat licence fee that would allow users who paid it to download as much as they wanted. Now, whilst that has been proposed, it’s not what the government are seeking to do. This £25 per year is to fund measures aimed at pursuing file-sharers.

    Other comments suggest an attitude of “if I’m being billed £25 a year for no benefit then I’ll definitely download more just to make up for it”.

    So, reactions seem to be a mix of misguided belief that this is a pass for downloading and angry resolve to treat it as if it is. If this is at all representative of the reaction of UK net users (i.e. most of the population) then I do not see the DEB reducing file-sharing one whit.

  6. cde says:

    If some countries see Internet access as a human right (rightly IMHO), and some commentators call this collective punishment (also justified), we would still have to be “protected persons” for Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention to apply:

    Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation (…) are prohibited.

    So are we in an occupied territory?

  7. RainyRat says:

    government ministers have admitted that the costs will amount to £500m ($799.2m)

    Based solely on that line, I predict that the actual cost will be closer to £750m.

  8. shadowfirebird says:

    £25/year would certainly be painful for this family. I don’t know whether it would knock us off the internet, or whether we would just decide that if we’re committed to spending that much money, we might as well spend a bit more and get a faster connection than we have now (fast enough to run TOR, for example).

  9. Anonymous says:

    And let’s not forget, this is on top of the proposed 50p a month tax on every phone line.

    Given that I don’t trust the Government on financial costings, and given that they will only increase once

  10. MD1500 says:

    This scheme will cost £500 million a year and will increase music and film sales by £1.7 billion over 10 years.

    Now maybe I’m bad at maths, but spending £5 billion to increase profits by £1.7 billion doesn’t actually make any kind of financial sense whatsoever.

    When the new law inevitably fails to produce the results the music and movie industry wants, I have no doubt that the £25 a year fee will increase.

    And let’s not forget, this is in addition to the proposed 50p a month tax on every phone line(!)

    • hbl says:

      So the numbers say that this is a Bad Idea, but since when has that ever stood in the way of an unbelievably stupid idea?

      Thing is, I don’t download music or movies. I’ve got spotify and a television, and friends. Why should I have to pay an extra £25 a year just so the ISPs can fullfil their legal obligation to tell off those people who do?

      I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you all pay me £25, and if you get sued, I’ll pay your settlement fee to get the douchebags off your back.

      This is just one of a succession of monumentally stupid ideas that have dribbled out of the Labour Party’s leaky adult nappy. It’s little wonder then that we feel as though we are being shit on, and hope that someone else comes along to clean up the mess.

  11. Anonymous says:

    MD1500: £500 million is half a billion rather than £5 billion, so it’s half a billion for a £1.7 billion return. in any case, the objections lie beyond a simple cost benefit analysis

  12. Anonymous says:

    “government ministers have admitted that the costs will amount to £500m ($799.2m)”
    “Based solely on that line, I predict that the actual cost will be closer to £750m.”

    You must mean £799.2m. Everyone knows in the music industry $1 = £1 (= €1)

Leave a Reply