6. Following on from the above question; for awhile some ISPs could find themselves selling several different broadband technology services (e.g. ADSL2+, FTTP, FTTC etc.). Is there a danger that the added complexity could cause real confusion among customers?

AAISP: We already have ADSL2+, ADSL1, FTTC, Fibre Ethernet, and BE ADSL2+ AnnexM. They already have massively varying costs for installation, fixed costs and bandwidth costs. One of the challenges we have is trying to present a sensible choice of service and tariffs to
our customers. The recently announced changes to BT 21CN bandwidth costs without corresponding changes to BT 20CN costs mean that we already have to consider differential pricing for 20CN and 21CN from next year.

7. Speaking of future broadband services, the next generation of Mobile Broadband technology (LTE) is already promising to deliver services capable of up to and beyond 150Mbps, which will start to deploy in the UK sometime around the end of next year (2010).

LTE is designed to put right some of the problems that have plagued existing (HSPA) Mobile Broadband services, such as high latency (lag), poor capacity management and slow speeds. Do you think this evolution and the increasingly rapid uptake of Mobile Broadband will combine to threaten fixed land-line broadband ISPs?

AAISP: This does sound interesting, but radio systems will never be able to keep up with point to point fibre services. Ultimately contention for radio spectrum has to be an issue. However, improvements in radio based IP connectivity will help provide services to a wider
range of people more easily. Mobile solutions are not only convenient for end users but also quick and less expensive to deploy than fibre or copper solutions.

8. Piracy (i.e. illegal file sharing downloads) has been another of 2009’s many emotive issues, with the Digital Britain report initially setting out a process of warnings to be followed up by service restrictions (blocked sites, P2P speed limits etc.).

Since then Peter Mandelson has forced his way in to add a disconnection (cut-off) policy as an option for tackling persistent illegal downloading suspects. What do you think of this and the original proposals for solving the problem (is there a better solution)?

AAISP: We will have to see how this goes in to law. The whole idea is severely broken in so many ways it is hard to know where to start.

a) Copyright law already affords additional protection compared to many other rights such as patent. Copyright has criminal consequences as well as civil wrongs which patent holders wish they had too. Most such rights are handled by the normal civil legal process. Yet the music industry wants more! There is a legal process for obtaining compensation for civil wrongs already.

b) The idea of some sort of punishment as a revenge for an alleged civil wrong rather than simply recompensing the offended party is wrong.

c) The idea of a punishment for an alleged civil wrong without any due legal process and option to defend against the accusation, is wrong.

d) The idea of a punishment for an alleged civil wrong that affects other totally innocent parties, is wrong.

e) The idea of disconnecting someone from key national infrastructure which may be essential for many services, as a punishment, is wrong.

f) The idea of severely limiting someones free speech by limiting their ability to communicate, is wrong.

g) The idea of disconnecting someone's internet which may be the only way they get services such as telephone (including 999 access), is wrong. With increasing FTTP type solutions, the IP connectivity someone has may be their only telephone service.

h) The practicality of disconnecting someones internet when they can simple sign up with another ISP, or in another name, or buy a pay as you go mobile, or use an internet cafe or free wifi or neighbours wifi, etc, makes the proposal totally stupid and ineffective.

i) The idea of making the ISP an unpaid police force and court service, is wrong.

j) The basis for the whole argument is most likely flawed. The loss of revenue assumes people downloading music would have paid for it. They would not as I am sure most are teenage kids and the like that don't have the money to pay for it. So actually the argument is based on flawed logic. I hear that download sales are increasing all the time and people that do put in place means to buy material legitimately and easily are increasing revenue for the music industry.

k) If this comes in to law there is bound to be a degree of rebellion. It has been show how easy it is to poison trackers and I am sure that will be used to disconnect people for fun.