Strained, inconsistent, unjustified and full of misconceptions - proposals by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom for implementation of the 3-strikes copyright enforcement regime under the DE Act, come in for  a litany of criticism by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

 It's rumoured the the UK Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, voted for the Digital Economy Act so that he would not have to hear of it again. If that is true, he could not have misjudged it more.  

The  ISPs are finally fighting back, and  have vented their anger in a barrage of criticism directed at the telecoms regulator, Ofcom.  They accuse Ofcom of pushing forward the ill-thought-through plans of the previous Labour government, without consideration of the implications for their business or for citizens. They allege that Ofcom is  failing UK citizens, distorting the market, and takes a

AT&T, which lobbied so hard in Brussels to get ‘restrictions' into the Telecoms Package, is now lobbying to keep itself out of the UK's 3-strikes regime. Has AT&T had a change of heart? No.

Such a proposition could give AT& T and Verizon a significant market advantage over   competitors. At the same time, it would put small businesses of all kinds at a serious disadvantage.  The real question is just how much market distortion would it create?

 The American telecoms provider AT&T, and its lobbying partner Verizon, are asking the UK regulator for exclusion from the UK's 3-strikes copyright enforcement regime, which will be implemented under the Digital Economy Act.  In particular, they want an exclusion for "business

The review of the E-commerce Directive asks whether network  filtering can be effective and whether there are liability  issues for "web 2.0 and cloud computing". Given  that it is under the remit of  the French Commissioner, Michel Barnier, how are we to read this strange approach to a consultation which specifically does NOT want to hear the citizen perspective?

In the middle of the summer holidays, when few were around to  notice it, the European Commision has sneaked out a highly controversial review of the Ecommerce directive. The review is consulting on the use of Internet filtering and monitoring and search engine linking. It appears to have been influenced by the pharmaceutical, luxury goods and  copyright industries. And in a move that is sure to inflame the user community, the Commission has specifically ruled out responses from citizens' groups and NGOs.

The Commission considers that

The ghostly spectre of the Telecoms Package that has stood behind ACTA, is becoming more clearly discernible. And a devious PR move by  the ACTA negotiators is bad news for Internet users.

Following the Washington meeting of the ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement)  negotiators in August, it is now emerging that the requirement for secondary liability on ISPs could be dropped. Apparently, this is at the request of the US.

But is this just a  cynical public relations manoevre on the part of the ACTA negotiators? Analysis of the latest ACTA leak indicates that removal of the offending paragraph will not change a great deal in terms of the substance of ACTA  (see below). And a paragraph that is remarkably similar to one in the Telecoms Package remains in.

Government certified security software:  the French government's Hadopi wants to spy on everything on your computer, every time you log on, otherwise you cannot defend yourself against breach of  copyright allegations.  How far does this breach our right to privacy or freedom of expression?

Confidential details of a French government consultation on how to secure Internet access for 3-strikes/graduated response measures, have leaked. The consultation is  run by the Hadopi, the new public authority set up to oversee the French government's graduated response / 3-strikes law for copyright enforcement. The measures target peer-to-peer file-sharing in particular.

Although the consultation is supposed to be public, the details of the specification that Hadopi is requiring were kept secret. The leak - first reported by the French online technology magazine  Numerama.com -  is significant because it reveals a proposal for surveillance on Internet users'  own computers. The Hadopi is consulting on

Limiting conditions from SFR in the small print

Does the net neutrality consultation mean that the  EU will take on the citizens' concerns for civil rights and freedom of expression,  as they were expressed in the Telecoms Package debate of  2009?

Earlier this month, the European Commission launched a consultation on net neutrality. The fact that this consultation exists at all is due to the power of citizen lobbying during the

Legal uncertainty for citizens and ISPs can be expected from the Ofcom's Code to implement the Digital Economy Act, which will bring in 3-strikes (now confirmed as 3)  measures to the UK.

The Ofcom Consultation on the Initial Obligations Code, which implements the Digital Economy Act, ended yesterday. According to sources in consumer groups, citizens organisations  and ISPs, the code  fails to support either users or ISPs, even under the weak provisions which are in the Act. In many instances, the UK regulator is accused of putting users and businesses in a legally uncertain position.

The Ofcom Initial Obligations Code, as it is called, is criticised because it:

The Digital Economy Act, and the issues raised by it,  will  be addressed by  a new Committee of the UK Parliament. At its first meeting yesterday, it was  rights-holders v citizens. But where were the telcos?

The first meeting of the  All Party Parliamentary Group on the Digital Economy (APPG - Digital Economy) was held yesterday in the ancient and  hallowed halls of the Palace of Westminster. As befits this primordial  fight waged by the  rights-holders,  the poised and practiced  music industry lobbyists squared up to the largely volunteer citizens' representatives  across the room.

The rights-holders were for once not the dominant group, finding their presence matched by an equally strong citizen presence consisting of

In spite of the cloak and dagger secrecy with which the European Commission is trying to shroud its ACTA negotiators, Trade Commissioner Karel de Grucht let slip a few nuggets of information on Tuesday  afternoon - including comments on 3-strikes measures.

Speaking in a hearing with the European Parliament's Civil Liberties committee, which was public, Commissioner De Grucht said that he did not expect much progress at the next round of the ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement)  negotiations - which will be in Washington in late July.  And he further predicted that there was   unlikely to be movement on ACTA  before September.

The reason for the stalling is a difference of

Is it "transparency" when  a  confidential briefing is given behind closed doors? In a post-Lisbon era, can the Commission continue to bully the Parliament in this way?

The European Parliament was briefed on ACTA (formally known as the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement) yesterday. That is the official position anyway. But it wasn't a briefing that would generally be recognised as being part of a democratic process.

The briefing was given by the European Commission's ACTA negotiators, including the infamous Luc Devigne from DG Trade. It was given to  the Parliament's INTA (Trade)  Committee. However, if MEPs  wanted to hear what the Commission had to say, they  had to go behind closed doors to hear it. And they had to first agree that they would maintain confidentiality and not release the information publicly. It is understood that the 

A renewed call from Green MEPs for ACTA transparency crosses with a reply from  the Commission  that maintains its old, discredited line that ACTA will remain within the EU acquis.

Last week, the Green group  in the European Parliament  issued a call for  the European Commission to suspend all negotiation on the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) until there is a proper agreement in place for full transparency. By ‘transparency' the Greens mean that the negotiating documents can be made public.

The Greens stress their concerns that ACTA will infringe  citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms and that it will impose some form of graduated response measures.

But is the Commission listening? Also last week, a  written answer from the Trade Commissioner Karel de Grucht, crossed with the transparency call. The Commission's answer arguably dodged

The Ofcom consultation makes no pretence at preserving the neutrality of the Internet, and pushes away any debate on the interests of citizens - saying that this is a matter for government and not the regulator.  

 Ofcom's focus is on the network operators' right to use traffic management technology to block, throttle,  shape, prioritise and degrade users' communications.   Reading the consultation closely, Ofcom is not consulting on whether we should permit traffic management, or even whether  any limits should be put on it. Rather, the consultation concerns