Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Internet The Courts United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Major ISPs Challenge UK's Digital Economy Act 107

Techmeology writes "TalkTalk and BT, two of the UK's largest ISPs, seek to legally challenge the UK's Digital Economy Act, which was rushed through parliament during its last days prior to the election. TalkTalk and BT argue that the DEA infringes human rights and places large ISPs (with over 400,000 customers) at a disadvantage. They also believe the DEA could conflict with existing European Legislation such as the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, and the E-Commerce Directive — the latter stating that ISPs are not responsible for the actions of their customers. The Act, which saw twenty thousand letters sent to MPs in protest, contains measures to see websites suspected of distributing illegal material blocked, and Internet users disconnected or reported to copyright holders."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major ISPs Challenge UK's Digital Economy Act

Comments Filter:
  • by sa1lnr ( 669048 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @05:36AM (#32848720)

    BT is concerned about customers privacy?

    They thought SFA about it when they conducted the secret Phorm trials on tens of thousands of their customers.

  • by xaxa ( 988988 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @05:54AM (#32848782)

    For the first time since, well, quite a long time, we have no sizeable opposition in Parliament.

    What? Were you born since May?

    After the 2005 election (results [wikipedia.org]) Labour had 354 MPs, everyone else had 292. Any law Labour wanted, they got (hence ID cards, stop and search, etc).

    After the 2010 election (results [wikipedia.org]), the Con-Lib coalition has 362 MPs, everyone else has 248. Any law Con-Lib wants they'll get.

    That's how the House of Commons works (regardless of whether you agree with it or not).

  • by Canazza ( 1428553 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @05:54AM (#32848786)

    Virgin have better tech, but utterly shash customer service. Not only are they outsourced to India and about 50% of the time you speak to someone uninteligible, they're also not allowed to deviate from a set script, so when you have a complex problem you just have to keep shouting at them until they pass you to someone who can actually help you.
    Compound this with my tech-unsavvy gran who has a terrible time when something unusual pops up on her screen (ie, Films on demand selection screen showing over BBC1) and I'm not anywhere to help her, she ends up having to call their help number and just ends up getting frustrated. Honestly, they were going to send her out a brand new box because she doesn't know that pressing "TV" will clear whatever is on her screen, and their script doesn't cover crap like that.

  • by tpholland ( 968736 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @06:13AM (#32848844)

    OK--perhaps it will have little effect on anybody taking decisions, but it won't take more than a few minutes of your time, and if it can drive stories in the press etc, so much the better.

    1. Create an account at that rather lame new government site about repealing unneccessary laws to save money [hmg.gov.uk].
    2. Search for Digital Economy Act, or go to http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Ayourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk+digital+economy [google.co.uk]. Vote up some of the many threads that you find. Comment in support of each of these threads.
    3. Start your own thread asking for the repeal of the Digital Economy Act.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 09, 2010 @06:15AM (#32848850)

    This is just code to have the Act applied to small ISP's as well as large, and nothing to do with repealing the act altogether like it sounds

    Nope, not true. The act imposes a financial overhead on all ISPs that it covers. BT wants it repealed, because it will cost them money. The public want it repealed because it's a terrible piece of legislation. Their motives aren't the same as ours, but their objective is the same. Oh, and the major ISPs, including BT, did all object to this act before it was passed - they were ignored.

    The current government has promised to repeal stupid laws, and this is one that's getting a lot of votes on their site for suggesting laws to repeal.

  • by spamuell ( 1208984 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @07:15AM (#32849064)

    If they were really against they would have kicked up a row well before this.

    Um, they did: For example there was this letter letter [ft.com] to the Financial Times on March 9th 2010 criticising the Digital Economy Bill, which says:

    Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended.

    Oh, the signatories include the chairman of Talk Talk and the CEO of BT. A handy tip: if you're going to talk rubbish on the internet, make sure there isn't a public letter retrievable in about 2 seconds of googling which unambiguously demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

  • by digitig ( 1056110 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @07:53AM (#32849200)
    I'm sure they have an effect. The difference is that Labour and Conservative are dependent on corporate funding, the Liberal Democrats are not (mainly because they've never been able to raise significant amounts).
  • by mdwh2 ( 535323 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @08:54AM (#32849554) Journal

    The current government has promised to repeal stupid laws, and this is one that's getting a lot of votes on their site for suggesting laws to repeal.

    For anyone interested, it's at http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/digital-economy-act [hmg.gov.uk] .

    Currently on the top 5 of most commented, with one of the highest ratings at 4.9, with 1304 votes.

  • by soliptic ( 665417 ) on Friday July 09, 2010 @10:28AM (#32850408) Journal

    OR, you need to brush up [thegateway.org] on the very basics of corporate saving face [wikimedia.org] methods. Oh yeah, A letter. They really fought this tooth and nail,

    OR, you need to brush up on the meaning of "for example", and follow GP's advice about 2 seconds googling [google.co.uk] before digging yourself in even further. He didn't say, or even imply, that the letter was the full extent of their efforts, so your cutting sarcasm about how much signing the letter taxed their PR team doesn't do much except make you look even more stupid.

    Oh look, first two links from the 2 seconds googling, they went to the High Court [ispreview.co.uk] for a judicial review [thecmuwebsite.com].

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...