a. Entire families or businesses could be cut-off because of a single individuals act, such as by a child or employee/ex-employee of a business etc; individuals that would never own up to committing such an act due to fear of more severe punishment.

b. It could make public Wi-Fi services difficult to run because the owner could be deemed responsible and not the anonymous customer.

c. The majority of home Wi-Fi networks, even those with common security and encryption settings, are easy to hack for neighbours/local abusers to download illegally. But the connection owner would still be responsible and how do they prove their innocence? It is effectively a crime without evidence.

d. The proposed appeals process looks like little more than window dressing or a kangaroo court, only a true trial by judge in a court of law should determine whether an individual loses their Internet connection.

e. There are many anonymous methods that allow people to access the Internet and circumvent any such rules (payg Mobile Broadband, VPN, proxy servers, IP hijacking, anonymous P2P etc.), thus the whole principal of what is proposed appears to be unworkable and a massive waste of money.