Head of the regulatory body for UK communications industries hopes for a “commercial or voluntary agreement,” but also suggests that more drastic action could be taken to “resolve these difficult issues.”
Ed Richards, current head of the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom), which was established by the Office of Communications Act 2002 to be the “regulator for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services,” recently gave a speech at the Intellect Conference that seemed to hint at possible government intervention by his office in the file-sharing problem if ISPs fail to adequately address it.
It’s no secret that the UK govt has threatened to force ISPs to combat illegal file-sharing unless they do so voluntarily, but this is the first time that Ofcom, a regulatory body much like our Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has also threatened to intervene.
He comments:
Let me take one example. The current debate around illegal downloading online.
To date, Ofcom has not made a lot of public noise about the piracy issue. But that should not be mistaken for a lack of interest or concern. Our formal locus may be limited. But this sort of piracy is something that affects network operators, ISPs, content creators and consumers – and as the converged regulator we have of course been keeping a watchful eye on developments.
The issue is critical. An operator investing in next generation networks will not want it clogged up with illegal peer-to-peer content if that means no-one will pay to ensure a return on the investment, as we have seen in some Asia Pacific markets. And content providers, self evidently, do not want illegal traffic undermining their investment in IPR.
This is a crucial issue for both network providers and content creators. It has not touched every company in these spheres yet, but it will do. We very much hope that a commercial or voluntary agreement can be found to resolve these difficult issues. As the converged communications regulator, if we can play a constructive role in helping to find a common solution in the best interests of companies and consumers we would be very happy to do so.
The real crux of his speech lies in the words “commercial or voluntary agreement” and “constructive role.” They seem to be code words for plans where either ISPs charge customers a flat licensing fee for unlimited file-sharing (commercial ) or simply institute network P2P throttling or content filtering (voluntary). Failure to do either will undoubtedly mean that it’ll play a “constructive role” by forcing an ISP hands to pick one of the several aforementioned options.
It’s amazing that Richards doesn’t realize that when he says that ISPs don’t want their networks “clogged up with illegal peer-to-peer content” that file-sharers are in fact the ones driving the demand for faster and more expensive internet subscription packages. Who needs a 1.5Mbps connection for e-mail and YouTube?
Virgin Media has already started to realize this and is already backing off its threats and “mislabeled” warning letters threatening to disconnect file-sharers.
Stay tuned.
Related
- Music Industry Praises Deal Forcing ISPs to Combat Illegal File-Sharing
- Ofcom warns on BBC download plans
- UK Govt Wants ISPs to Crack Down on Illegal File-Sharing
- UK ISPs: ‘We’re not Responsible for Illegal File-Sharing on Our Networks’
- Belgian ISP Says it Cant Stop Illegal File-Sharing
When will they realize no one need high speed internet for email and web surfing alone.
Most people don’t even know when internet speed they get and wouldn’t notice the difference between 10mb and 20mb. Only file sharers and a few other people who might be streaming etc…