ISP Association on the Risks of Brexit, DoH and UK Full Fibre Targets

5. Increasingly politicians appear to be introducing measures that aren’t particularly workable and may potentially even be damaging to how people normally use or interact with the internet / online content (e.g. the often technically unworkable aspects of GDPR’s cookie policy, Article 13 [now 17] in the EU Copyright Directive and Age Verification / blocking for adult websites).

We get the sense from these that politicians often don’t understand how such networks and technologies work, thus failing to comprehend the full ramifications of their changes. We similarly get the sense that they aren’t listening or adapting enough to what the industry has to say on such issues.

Does the ISPA feel as if they’re being heard and concerns acted upon when raised, or do you think there is indeed a growing culture of wilful ignorance?

ANSWER:

In some ways there is a slight inevitably about this – as the Internet and technology became mainstream, politicians and others will look to regulate in what they see is in the interests of the public. Every few years witnesses a new approach to internet regulation and the most recent is the Online Harms White Paper that is set to establish a regulator for online harms.

The White Paper touches on a number of the challenges around internet regulation, such as the limitations on blocking and filtering, enforcement and jurisdiction and what constitutes a harm. Any changes to policy in this area should be targeted and specific to address a clear problem. The delay in implementing age verification shows the challenges in introducing new policy.

Politicians are only likely to continue to seek to regulate more so it’s important for industry and others to actively engage in these discussions to make for more informed and realistic policy. This is something ISPA regularly does and will continue to do.

It would be great to see politicians improve their understanding of the Internet and technology, but equally it needs industry and the technical community to improve how it understands policymakers’ concerns and intentions. As such we offer to meet with MPs, government and regulators on a regular basis and as early in the process as possible such that we can provide background information to help inform their thoughts before it gets to policy – however, the culture of sound bites and knee-jerk reactions are not a new phenomenon in politics.

6. You touched above on the new Online Harms White Paper, which appears to mark a significant shift toward a much more censored internet, where everything from fake news to hate speech and conspiracy theories could, at an extreme, end up being either removed at source or blocked by a broadband ISP.

The rules will focus upon major social networks (Facebook, Twitter etc.) but could also target smaller file-hosting sites, online forums, messaging services and even internet search engines. Smaller sites may struggle to implement effective filtering due to cost and limited human moderation resources (e.g. individual blogs are run by people who simply aren’t awake 24/7 to monitor such things).

One difficulty here is that there can be different interpretations of what is or is not “fake news” and some of the other content category definitions are similarly ambiguous. Suffice to say, many fear that in the race to protect internet users and children from harm we might ultimately sacrifice freedom of speech and expression. What are your thoughts on the recent proposals?

ANSWER:

UK ISPs have played a prominent role in supporting the online safety agenda for many years and acknowledge the importance of the Government’s ambition to make the UK the safest place to be online which underpins the Online Harms White Paper. There are, however, some areas of the White Paper that we have concerns about as they are currently expressed.

You mention the gulf in the resources of large social networks and small websites – this reality must inform the online harms regime. In our response to the consultation, we consistently emphasised the importance of proportionality, both in terms of scope and enforcement requests.

The UK Internet industry has great breadth and diversity and we suggested that services and business models where there is no, or very limited, associated harm to users should not be included in the scope. Furthermore, the size of companies must be taken into consideration to ensure that the regulatory burden is not too great for smaller businesses and start-ups. It is vital that this regulation does not undermine the UK’s position as a world leading digital economy and does not deter innovation and investment.

You are right to highlight the ambiguity of language used to describe harms in the White Paper and the dangers this poses to freedom of speech. The Government must clearly define the concept of ‘harm’ used in the regime and it should be founded on clear, transparent and evidence-based principles.

Similar transparency must be applied to the process for deciding which harms are in scope and such decisions should be subject to consultation. Here the importance of proportionality comes to the fore again – it is vital that the response to different kinds of harm is proportionate, consistent and targeted. The whole regime must be underpinned by a robust system of checks and balances, including a mechanism for appeals against the regulator, to uphold freedom of speech and expression.

7. In keeping with the above, Government politicians are known to be concerned about the future adoption of DNS over HTTPs (DoH) technology. At present ISPs usually control their own Domain Name Systems (DNS), but the new encrypted DoH solution can be managed by a third-party (e.g. Google’s Chrome website browser) and they may in the future enable it by default.

Politicians are concerned that DoH may hamper their censorship plans and some ISPs are also worried that it could create more problems for their service, such as by hindering the operation of certain features. On the other hand DoH is fundamentally a security and privacy improvement for consumers. What is your perspective on this debate?

ANSWER:

ISPA are widely supportive of measures to improve privacy and security; however, we would caution that the privacy improvements offered by DoH are often overstated and the protocol presents a whole host of security concerns. Beyond this, and the negative impact on user experience that you mention, the introduction of DoH raises concerns about data protection, user choice and consent, online safety and competition.

ISPA are adamant that DoH must not be introduced by default. We welcome recent indications from the major browsers that they do not plan to introduce the protocol by default in the UK; however, we would like to see this commitment formally expressed to UK stakeholders. Furthermore, any future implementation of DoH in the UK must be carried out in a responsible manner, being mindful of UK Internet norms and the complexities of user relationship and trust models that are in play.

The UK Internet industry upholds high standards of safety and security and DoH must not subvert this. Going forward, collaboration and consultation with the UK internet industry, third sector groups and policymakers will be vital.

8. The Government wants to see nationwide coverage of “full fibre” (FTTP) broadband ISP networks by 2033 and in order to do that they’ve committed nearly £1bn to help foster such networks, such as through targeted investment schemes and vouchers. Do you think this is the right approach to achieve such an aim and, if not, what should they be doing differently?

ANSWER:

We are keen to deliver on the Government’s ambitions for full fibre coverage, but these targets cannot be delivered overnight by the industry alone. The Government’s full commitment is needed to oversee considerable regulatory change, to wayleave legislation, fibre taxes and planning laws to name but a few.

Without the crucial removal of these barriers to sit alongside the very welcome funding commitments, the UK will not be able to reach full fibre coverage by 2033. It is really encouraging to see the growth in new network builders and ISPs building and rolling out full fibre services, this shows there is a healthy market delivering for consumers and businesses, although everyone recognises that further funding was also be required if we are to reach the whole of the country.

9. As part of the aforementioned effort the UK Government has already introduced a 5 year holiday on business rates for new fibre optic lines (effective since April 2017), although Scotland has just introduced a 10 years relief for the same purpose.

At the same time we note that the payback period for FTTP networks can be extremely lengthy, often extending to 10-15 years. Do you think the UK Government should also extend their relief from 5 years to 10 or possibly more?

ANSWER:

The business rates relief on fibre infrastructure has been welcomed by the industry, but it is well established that these infrastructure projects are planned with timelines of 15-20 years to recoup the investment made. This means that a five year relief window can only have a very limited effect, and we have been pushing for clarity well ahead of the 2022 ending date for relief.

The FTIR made the Government’s fibre ambitions clear, and a true sign of their commitment to the ‘full-fibre future’ would be to remove business rates from fibre infrastructure indefinitely. This would give the industry the certainty they need to build effective business cases and roll out fibre faster and further to the communities that desperately need it. The whole area of business rates needs to be reviewed as they are no longer fit for purpose in the digital age.

10. Openreach and Ofcom have both recently launched consultations on their future approach to switching off old copper networks as part of a phased move toward full fibre FTTP infrastructure. What sort of challenges do you see this as creating in the future and how do you think it should be handled?

ANSWER:

The switch off of legacy infrastructure will always be an important and nuanced issue as the UK moves away from copper infrastructure to higher capacity networks. There will undoubtedly be challenges given the number and range of consumers impacted, many of whom may be vulnerable, and it is particularly crucial that all parties can work together constructively to bring this about in the smoothest possible manner.

We’d just like to take a moment to thank Andrew for engaging with us over these topics. Earlier this year he also wrote a Guest Editorial for ISPreview.co.uk, which our visitors might also like to read (here).