Platform responsibility? Get the backstory - check my book The Closing of the Net - only £15.99!

The British government’s assessment of DE Act implementation costs  to justify the SI Costs Order presents a positive cost-benefit. But is the government painting too rosy a picture?

 The government presented  a one-off cost of £11.5 million, and “average annual costs” of between 6-20 million, against a benefit, calculated using Net Present Value techniques, of between £84m - £164m. But the government figures did not include the running costs for Ofcom.  More significantly, they  fail to include the costs of the Appeals Process. When those costs are factored  in, the picture changes quite significantly.   Using the

 most reasonable of the government estimates, and based on the government’s own target for the volume of  notifications to be sent, appeals could add anything between £10.6m  to £59.8 m to the cost of implementing the measures in the DE Act.

 The running costs for Ofcom are estimated at £5 m per year.  ISP costs are estimated to be between £1.5m and 5m.

 Thus, using realistic figures from the government, the lowest estimated running costs for the DE Act are £22 million per year. But there is a potential for costs to rise up to around  £ 85 m per year.  

 In that light, the government’s stated benefit of £84-164 m looks much less attractive.

 The government may be cavalier with the figures because  the rights-holders will be footing most of the bill, with the ISPs picking up the tab for the remainder.  From a purely civil service, administrative viewpoint, the government does not have to justify public spending. DCMS can relax in meetings with the Treasury.

 But from the  public interest viewpoint, it raises a serious  question.  The document in which these figures are presented, is being put before Parliament to justify secondary legislation. Even if the funds do not come out of taxes, they will – one way or another – come out of the what  we pay for ISP services, and  for music and films. The public will be paying, even if the Treasury is not.

 And thus Parliament, as our elected representatives, is entitled to have correct and full information on which to base its decisions. In this case, it should have the full costs.


Please attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) The 84 million-a-year bill for DE Act  29 September 2011 .




States v the 'Net? 

Read The Closing of the Net, by me, Monica Horten.

"original and valuable"  Times higher Education

" essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces at play behind the web."

Find out more about the book here  The Closing of the Net


FROM £15.99

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

In 2012, I presented my PhD research in the European Parliament.

Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark is the website of Dr Monica Horten. She is a policy analyst specialising in Internet governance & European policy, including platform accountability. She is a published author & Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She served as an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on  Internet Freedom. She has worked on CoE, EU and UNDP funded projects in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. In a voluntary capacity, she has led UK citizen delegations to the European Parliament. She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012.

Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy (and related issues on Brexit). Iptegrity has a core readership in the Brussels policy community, and has been cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link.  For more, see IP politics with integrity is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes