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?

ANSWER: No – Mobile Broadband is designed to move, therefore there is a greater overhead in the operation and transmission of data on the network, this translates to greater costs and lower network capacity. Unless mobile usage costs drop and the backhaul is significantly upgraded then a fixed line solution will work out more cost effective for those locations that you need a fixed connection. What I do expect to see is more ISPs coming to deals with Mobile networks to provide a one-bill solution that integrates broadband and mobile phone solutions but mostly for their business customers.

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)?

ANSWER: ISPA’s position on this has always been clear, we disagree with terminating customer contract but understand that rights holders are being disadvantaged by the current situation. What is need is for business models in the creative content industries to change to the new environment and provide end users with access to the content they want, in the way that they desire and for a price that is acceptable. Until that happens people will find ways of getting round whatever is brought forward to ‘crack down’ on the problem. 

9. Doubts also remain over the tracking methods used to log illegal downloads, which involves monitoring Internet Protocol ( IP ) addresses on P2P file sharing networks and linking them with specific ISPs and users. This method does not appear to be a reliable way of identifying individuals.

IP addresses are assigned to every computer when you go online, yet they can easily be spoofed, redirected, shared (internet cafe, businesses etc.) or even hijacked (open Wi-Fi networks). The download itself could also be encrypted, making it impossible for the ISP to verify.

What are your thoughts on the current methods employed to track abuses and do you think there is a better way of identifying and confirming illegal downloading activity?

ANSWER: Let’s start with a clearing up, downloading copyrighted files from the internet isn’t illegal. Distribution of copyrighted  files on the internet for no reward isn’t illegal, it’s a civil offence and as such they will have to sue the end user directly rather than just report the offence to the police. The net effect of this is to move the argument from being ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘balance of probability’ (and how much you can influence a judge using your charm skills). 

Some copyright investigation organisations have gone to the effort of actually downloading the content and making sure that content they are advertising is what it says it is. In these cases the spoofing of addresses is rather pointless as the IP does relate to a machine that has the content available, but it takes no account of services that have been ‘stolen’ (e.g. Wifi drive-bys). This level of evidence would probably be enough to stand up in a criminal court and therefore should be sufficient. Organisations that aren’t making the effort to work to these levels of investigation standard are the ones that have failed spectacularly (how I wish they had hit an MP by mistake).

The other issue that ISPs frequently raise is that the questions they receive from these agencies are frequently lacking in details (such as timezone) that does mean that users on dynamic IPs are occasionally fingered by mistake and this will continue where standards slip.