The Government’s plan to add 50p per month to all phone bills to fund next generation broadband networks in rural areas will result in at least 100,000 low income homes being forced to give up their broadband lines. That’s according to Charles Dunstone, CEO of TalkTalk, the UK’s largest provider of broadband to homes.

Later today (Monday 2nd November) TalkTalk’s director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney, will give evidence to the BIS Committee, to outline the company’s concerns. The tax, first proposed in the Digital Britain report in June, has not been the subject of any public consultation. The proposed taxation scheme will last for around seven years, beginning in 2010, raising £40 from every home; a total of about £1 billion.

“This is an unjust and regressive tax on all phone customers which will subsidise mostly richer rural households that can afford high priced super fast broadband services,” said Charles Dunstone.

“As well as being unfair we estimate that the increase in price will mean that over 100,000 mostly low income homes will be forced to give up their broadband lines. This is wholly inconsistent with the Government’s plans to tackle digital exclusion by increasing uptake and use of broadband.

“Crucially the scheme is likely to delay next generation broadband roll-out in rural areas rather than hasten it as private investors will wait for public funds to be made available. This will mean that much of the tax will be wasted investing in networks that the private sector would have built themselves anyway.

“I understand that this levy was devised at the last minute after the Treasury refused to make funds available, presumably because they thought it was a bad use of public money.”

TalkTalk will also express concerns to the BIS Committee that the Government has dodged proper public debate on this important issue by including the levy in the Finance Bill which traditionally is not consulted on.

TalkTalk supports well-targeted government aid for broadband and it has backed the universal service commitment to deliver 2Mbps broadband countrywide. However, TalkTalk believe that public funds must be focussed on delivering essential basic services (not for premium services that few want and only where the private sector has been unable to meet demand.

TalkTalk’s views is that it may well be that public funds are needed for next generation broadband but also that we are several years away from that point. Introducing an unfair tax now, according to the UK’s largest provider of broadband to homes,  is premature and will be counter-productive. The Government and Ofcom should, in its view,  focus on enabling private sector investment and ensuring effective competition.

“When broadband first started people said the networks would only reach 60 per cent of the population,” said Charles Dunstone. “The private sector, unaided, actually got to 99 per cent coverage, far further than in most other countries.

“We now need to let the private sector drive next generation broadband as far as it can. Public funding at this stage – in what appears to be an effort to ‘keep up with the Joneses in Korea, Singapore and the Netherlands – is simply going to waste customers’ money and slow down roll-out.

“To tax all phone customers is not even robbing Peter to pay Paul, it’s just robbing Peter.”

About seven million* homes and small businesses are vulnerable to Wi-Fi hijacking and so at risk of being wrongly disconnected from the Internet according to a new study into broadband security released today.


The study coincides with today’s launch of a campaign against Lord Mandelson’s plans to disconnect people suspected of illegal filesharing without a trial.


Don’t Disconnect Us (www.dontdisconnect.us) has been initiated by TalkTalk, Britain’s biggest provider of broadband to homes. The campaign’s website sets out three principal objections to Lord Mandelson’s plans;


1.  It by-passes the courts and gives rightsholders quasi-judicial powers


2. It exposes millions of people to false prosecution since it is based on an approach where those suspected of illegal filesharing will be presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence in order to avoid being falsely disconnected


3. It will do little to tackle illegal filesharing since the main offenders will easily avoid detection by using other people’s broadband connections to download content or encrypting their activity.  Indeed the proposed measures will increase Wi-Fi and PC hijacking and so increase even further the chances of innocent customers being wrongly cut off


The risk of innocent people being disconnected is not hypothetical. Consumer organisations such as Which? have been contacted by dozens of people who have been wrongly accused of filesharing by rightsholders who used a similar method to the one Lord Mandelson is suggesting.


Last week a knowledgeable Parliamentary committee, Apcomm, came out squarely against Mandelson’s disconnection plans saying “this approach [disconnection] to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered”


The Don’t Disconnect Us website provides a hub for people to learn the latest views on tackling illegal filesharing from around the world, a forum to discuss the issues and a link to a petition on the No 10 website where opposition to the plans can be registered.


The survey of 1,083 Wi-Fi connections, which was conducted by TalkTalk, found that 5 per cent of connections were completely open (ie no security at all), 36 per cent used WEP which is easily hackable and 56 per cent used WPA which is currently fairly secure, though a vulnerability has already been detected meaning it could become hackable soon. Only 3 per cent used the most secure form of protection, WPA2.

Find out more

A new YouGov poll commissioned by the Open Rights Group provides a response to Government proposals to force ISPs to disconnect suspected illegal downloaders.   Nearly 70% of those surveyed said someone suspected of illegal downloading should have a right to a trial in court before any restrictions on internet use were imposed.

Sion Simon, the minister for the internet, insists that disconnection is a last resort.   The growing backlash from internet users, camnpaign groups and now an all-party Parliamentary motion urging a rethink of the policy.   Barely 16% of respondents to the YouGov survey supported automatic curbs based on accusations by copyright holders such as musicians.

The core complains from ISPs is that the proposals require them to bear the costs of protecting a third party’s rights, namely the rights of the copyright holder.   In a context where illegal filesharers can avoid detection by encrypting traffic, or by hijacking someone else’s IP address or Wi-Fi network you can imagine the nighmare involved in policing the proposals.

In other results from the survey, 73% of respondents said they would find their ability to use vital commercial services, such as shopping and banking, completely disrupted or fairly harmed if they were disconnected.  

Last week’s inquiry into the issue of file sharing by the all-party Parliamentary communications group concluded:

“much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available . . . . We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal filesharing should not be further considered.”

Ministers continue to stress that requiring Ofcom to demand ISPs take technical measures against people who repeatedly ignore the law, such as capping broadband speed or filesize, is a last resort.

• File Sharing: The Risks
• Music for life – get 50 free downloads

This is what Gordon Brown said in his speech yesterday to Labour’s Conference:

“In the last two years we have looked again at how we can give the best security to our British citizens while never undermining their liberties.

We will reduce the information British citizens have to give for the new biometric passport to no more than that required for today’s passport.

And so conference, I can say to you today, in the next parliament there will be no compulsory ID cards for British citizens.”

This announcement, giving all the appearance of a sweeping and definitive policy change, follows modest changes publicised by Alan Johnson earlier this year.   Is the Government trying to draw the poison from the ID card issue?   Or is the truth that the Government is also retaining its long-term ambitions?

The Guardian reports that the Home Office is preparing to spend £500,000 on advertising campaign, which features cartoon fingerprints, between now and December.   In addition, 90,000 ID cards have already been issued as part of an earlier trial.   The government is going to start issuing cards to skilled migrants when they renew their visas, making take-up compulsory.   From this month the UK Border Agency will trial issuing ID cards at Post Offices, presumably in tandem with thge Home Office advertising campaign.

The ID card policy would seem to remain intact . . . for now.

108 people have been prosecuted under UK hacking laws between 2003 and 2007.   Of these, sixty-one were convicted.   This is equivalent to a 56% conviction rate.

A junior minister at the Ministry of Justice, in a written response to a question from Cardiff Lib Dem MP Jennifer Willott, reported the number of successful prosecutions under the Computer Misuse Act.  

Section One, the least serious category, includes simple attacks like unauthorised access to a computer.   Section Two offences cover computer hacking.   Section three offences cover more serious issues like the creation of computer viruses and the instigation of denial of service attacks which can impair the operation of computers and website servers.

The figures only cover prosecutions where computer hacking offences were the principal offence being considered by the courts.   That is, those cases most likely to lead to the toughest punishment upon conviction.   Figures from both magistrate and crown court prosecutions are included in the figures.

The written answer on CMA prosecutions was made available online on Tuesday (22 September) by Hansard, the Parliamentary record of proceedings.

In a narrowly won vote, the French National Assembly passed a draft law that means that illegal downloaders will be disconnected from the internet.

The French policy on piracy has drawn global attention and seems to confirm the hard line stance taken by Lord Mandelson, here in the UK.

The French Socialist Party will appeal to the French Constitutional Court, the highest in France, in the hope that this draft law – like an earlier version – will be declared unconstitutional.

The proposed legislation operates under a three strikes system similar to that mooted by Lord Carter’s Digital Britain report. 

Consumer groups in France have warned that innocent people may get punished.    In addition, the European Parliament is currently considering whether depriving people of their internet access is a breach of human rights.

Cybercriminals and online mischief makers have been quick to exploit internet users searching for more on the Patrick Swayze’s death.  

Malicious websites have been set up and pushed towards the top of the major search engines through what’s known as ‘black hat’ (in plain English, bad form) search engine optimising techniques.  

These sites in turn point to others which force fake anti-virus scanners that warn of non-existent security problems in a bid to trick the unsuspecting into buying software of dubious utility.

Serena Williams’ tennis US Open outburst video and the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks have also been exploited as themes for scareware traps over recent days.   Keith Floyd (RIP) probably won’t be far behind.

The mechanism of such attacks is achieving greater sophistication with time.   In some cases, sites listed in Google’s index for a search term of interest are hacked by cybercriminals who plant malicious scripts to redirect innocent users onto their scareware payload sites.

In a savage twist, the scripts on compromised sites are designed to prevent forwarding unwitting surfers to scareware download site unless Google is the referrer, helping the scams stay undetected for longer.

The proposed ban on access to the internet for repeat offences related to illegal downloading, announced yesteday, drew criticism from both civil rights groups and internet service providers.

Treasury Minister Stephen Timms said that previous plans to restrict users’ broadband speed didn’t go far enough.   Instead the Government proposed the possibility of blocking offenders’ access to download sites as well as banning them from the Internet altogether.

The Open Rights Group, which protects civil liberties in the area of digital technology, said any suspension would “restrict people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression.”

The British proposals shine a spotlight on those Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which host file-swapping sites and requires them to identify and take action against offenders.

The new government proposals require ISPs to issue written warnings to subscribers whose IP address has been spotted on an illegal download site.   Copyright holders would use court orders to access details of any warnings issued by the ISPs, leading to the possibility of civil lawsuita against a suspected offender.

It is relatively easy for determined filesharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection.   In addition, ISPs are understandably uneasy at being asked to ‘police’ the Internet and their members’ Internet usage in this way.  Moreover, there is the blurred issue of content that is available to copy, and defining that from among the massive proliferation of content online will be an expensive and ongoing process.  As usual, the costs of administering such a scheme will fall to ISPs as will the burden of having to explain to users why their connections have been terminated.

The Open Rights Group, which protects civil liberties in the area of digital technology, said any suspension would “restrict people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression.”

But the British Phonographic Industry, which represents the recorded music industry, said the move was “a step forward that should help the legal digital market to grow for consumers.”

As we reported when the Government’s Digital Britain report was released, this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in that it appears to crompomise all our right to privacy to protect commercial interests.

Related Article – File Sharing: The Risks

UPDATE

In a letter to the Guardian today (27 August 2009), Lord Mandelson has denied that his meeting with David Geffen influenced  the government move to cut-off illegal peer-to-peer filesharers from their internet connections.

He wrote: “The subject of internet piracy was not discussed during our meeting”

“Work on this started long before my holiday in August, with officials submitting advice to DCMS ministers and myself on 3 July. This set out a possible change in thinking and was not the result of any single conversation but followed engagement with a wide range of stakeholders.”

Illegall downloaders of films and music will have their broadband connection cut off under Government proposals to be announced today.

So, what does this mean:

• Internet users who share copyrighted materials with others will get warning letters, before having their internet connection stopped if they persist
• Government departments will assume the powers currently held by OFCOM to deal with these offenders
• In it’s Digital Britain report the Government said that this was a step too far, it is nonetheless going ahead with the proposals that report contained
• A similar ruling in France was declared unconstitutional by that country’s highest court

Illegal downloaders might have grounds to claim the British law is a breach of the Human Rights Act.
 
The decision will reignite speculation that Lord Mandelson made a deal with David Geffen, the Hollywood music and entertainments mogul, earlier this month.    The Business Secretary reportedly met with David Geffen at Nat Rothschild’s villa in Corfu.   Mr Geffen is one of the founders of Dreamworks.

Last night, a Department for Business spokesman (the Government Department Lord Mandelson heads) denied that Mr Mandelson spoke to David Geffen about online piracy, and said there was no connection between that meeting and the Government’s proposals.

How this proposal will be policed remains to be clarified as does the issue of how an illegal download is defined.   In addition, if P2P sites are criminalised further there is a risk that they will go further underground and ramp up efforts to stay steps ahead of government and regulators.    This doesn’t justify illegal downloads, but is a valid part of the wider discussion.

File Sharing: The Risks

Digital Britain: A sledgehammer to crack a nut

Bullying via Facebook has resulted in the first person in Britain to be jailed for cyber-bullying.

Keeley Houghton, 18, from Worcestershire, was sentenced to three months in a young offenders’ institution after posting a message saying that she would kill Emily Moore.

According to The Guardian, the court was told she had previous convictions in connection with Moore. In 2005 she was convicted of assaulting Moore as she walked home from school. Two years later she was convicted of causing criminal damage after kicking Moore’s front door.  The court also heard how she told police that she wrote the death threats while she was drunk late at night, with little subsequent memory of having done so.  When police examined internet records they discovered Houghton wrote the comments at 4pm on 12 July, keeping them on her Facebook page for at least 24 hours thereafter.

On 12 July, The Guardian reported Houghton updated her status on Facebook to read: “Keeley is going to murder the b*tch. She is an actress. What a f*cking liberty. Emily F*ckhead Moore.”

Technology is giving children, and adults, more ways to connect, socialise and communicate than ever before. This is good news. The bad news is that some people are abusing the technology. One way they abuse it is by cyber bullying.

• Cyber bullying is essentially a high tech version of the schoolyard bully;
• Cyber bullying is cruel anti-social behaviour perpetrated either online or via mobile phones against other people.

Cyber-bullying explained

Find out how to spot the signs and deal with the consequences before they lead to dangerous consequences.