Q9 - Is there a risk that some communities, which could benefit from a niche NGA broadband solution supplied by a smaller operator, could still lose out due to some of those same small ISP platforms being closed to rival providers and thus restricting competition into a small local monopoly?

Answer:
One might consider this a risk but given a choice I wonder how many people would opt for a monopoly with broadband access or no broadband access at all. Once an operator has put down fibre into a community with a borderline business case then it is unlikely that a competitor is going to emerge. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to get a return for their investment on what will be a substantial capital outlay.

Having looked at the limited instances of rural connectivity we have in the UK most subscribers have the option to use someone else’s services over the top of the basic broadband connection.

I guess if it gets to the point where the operator is seen to be ripping people off in a big way there could be scope for regulatory intervention.

---

Market Regulation

Q10 - Ofcom recently launched a tougher voluntary v2 code of practice for broadband speeds. This aims to ensure that ISPs offer a more accurate assessment of the subscribers predicted connection performance. It also added a 'get out' clause to long contracts, allowing those who receive significantly less speed than expected to leave without penalty. What are your thoughts on this latest update?

Answer:
I am supportive of Ofcom here.  I think it is outrageous that people quote “up to” the maximum theoretical speeds a line can get. The problem that most ISPs have is that once one of them pitches it in this way they all have to follow or risk losing out in the publicity wars.

Another problem is of course that everyone is going to get a different line speed based on numerous variables so coming up with a uniform way of marketing is not easy.

Something along the lines of “ADSL2+ = up to 24Mbps but ask your ISP to run a line check because you will probably get a much slower speed” should do the trick.

Q11 - Ofcom has also begun a series of consultations on its new code of practice for tackling internet copyright infringement ("illegal" file sharing by ISP customers), which directly relates to the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA). The code essentially set out how ISPs should tackle Copyright Infringement Reports (CIR) and send notifications (Warning Letters) to those accused.

However both the DEA and Ofcom's approach have been heavily criticised for failing to understand the problem, not correctly apportioning costs (25% shouldered by ISPs and the rest to Rights Holders), proposing an apparently weak appeals process and generally ignoring how ISPs, as "mere conduits" of information, actually work. What are your thoughts on this?

Answer:
I have written extensively on this subject and was active in talking to MPs during the run up to the DEA. Whilst I sympathise with the RHs I don’t agree with how they are going about trying to solve their own problem.

Parliamentarians and their advisors do not adequately understand the issues and the subject was of course not given enough time to be properly debated.

We now find ourselves in a mess in trying to implement the Act that is going to have repercussions over a number of years. Even though it was one of the last acts of a government desperate to show that it could be effective, both Labour and Conservatives were complicit in this and must take responsibility.

I can only hope that over the next few months MPs will see that the DEA isn’t going to work and do something about it.