Smaller ISPs could become very popular

Rik · May 18, 2010, 12:50:32

El Reg reports that:

QuoteOfcom has decided that only fixed line ISPs with more than 400,000 subscribers will be forced to comply with the Digital Economy Act's controversial anti-filesharing provisions.

The communications regulator has informed the Internet Service Providers' Association of the benchmark, and said it intends to publish rules within the next two weeks. The decision marks the swift conclusion of talks we reported on towards the end of April.

It means mobile broadband operators will be exempt from the system. The fixed line ISPs that will be required to send warning letters to customers and potentially throttle their bandwidth or temporarily suspend their access are: BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange and O2.

KCOM, which has less than 400,000 subscribers but does have a monopoly on fixed line internet access in the Hull area, is also likely come under the regime

IDNet and other niche ISPs could suddenly become very popular.

Simon · May 18, 2010, 12:54:27

Damn. We certainly don't want to be overrun with extreme users.

Rik · May 18, 2010, 12:55:05

We don't. I'm sure IDNet would manage the situation well.

Simon · May 18, 2010, 12:57:06

Technical Ben · May 18, 2010, 16:13:42

Does that not totally flout the law? I mean... it's ok if your on a mobile?

Rik · May 18, 2010, 16:15:59

It doesn't so much flout the law as slip by Ofcom rulings, Ben.

Technical Ben · May 18, 2010, 19:18:12

You mean in the same way I can use dynamite to "decoratively carve a feature into the lake" as long as I'm not fishing?
"Those fish jumped onto my BBQ officer, just happens to be after my detonation. No officer, I'm not fishing illegally."
Sounds like providing a loophole to me. All it needs is for BT to section itself off to individual exchanges, (via subcontracting?), and this law applies to no one.

Rik · May 18, 2010, 19:32:19

pukka · May 18, 2010, 20:13:21

Hello, I would have thought idnet had more than 400,000 subscribers,if not then they should have according to some people i was talking to last week,they said that idnet is one of the most reliable isp's out there.i myself find idnet very good but then i wouldn't know the difference from one isp to another except from what i read on the net

Simon · May 18, 2010, 22:04:35

My guess is it's nowhere near that, which is why they're still reliable.

Lance · May 18, 2010, 23:01:18

My guess is in thousands, possibly low 10's of thousands.

Gary · May 19, 2010, 00:43:00

I would guess about 10,000 or so

Bill · May 19, 2010, 09:16:29

Quote from: pukka on May 18, 2010, 20:13:21they said that idnet is one of the most reliable isp's out there.

It is, but it's also one of the more expensive- you gets what you pay for!

Rik · May 19, 2010, 09:17:33

And sometimes you pay for something you've never had.

Simon · May 19, 2010, 11:03:02

And sometimes you get extra, without paying for it.

Rik · May 19, 2010, 11:12:58

Oh, you mean the cockroaches with your KFC.

Simon · May 19, 2010, 11:30:11

Supanova · May 19, 2010, 14:03:06

On my O2 connection (birmingham flat) I might have a problem! Oh wait....I have a VPN that costs less than $2 a month that encrypts all my traffic. Yaaaaaaaaaay waste of government money.

I don't think you need to worry about people migrating to IDnet. Most people savvy enough to know to change to a smaller ISP are savvy enough to know the digital economy bullnonsense can be completely defeated for the sake of about 40p a week.

Tacitus · May 19, 2010, 14:38:47

Quote from: Supanova on May 19, 2010, 14:03:06
....I have a VPN that costs less than $2 a month that encrypts all my traffic. ..........Most people savvy enough to know to change to a smaller ISP are savvy enough to know the digital economy bullnonsense can be completely defeated for the sake of about 40p a week.

But are you really, really certain you know what's going on at the other end of the VPN?

Can't the larger ISPs break themselves up into smaller subsidiary companies, with company HQ in (say) Holland, Slovakia etc and spread the subscribers around.

Supanova · May 19, 2010, 15:38:01

Quote from: Tacitus on May 19, 2010, 14:38:47
But are you really, really certain you know what's going on at the other end of the VPN?

A VPN service provider needs customers. They know full well that the majority of its customers require that they perform no checks on the data going through them. Most (good) VPN providers are in Sweden, which is notoriously lax on internet policing. As with everything though, you can only go so far before you are forced to trust something.

Besides that it is perfectly legal for anyone to use a VPN for all their traffic if they wish. If, somehow, the VPN provider decides they want to lose all their customers then the worst that could happen to the UK customers is they get 1 out of their 3 strikes. I can guarantee people won't stop their current habits until they get at least 1 of those 3 strikes.

Quote from front page of the first VPN site I googled:

QuoteAbout Privacy - "Our most important aim is to ensure your privacy and security. For this reason our servers are configured in such a way that your real IP is never stored, so there will be no trace of your real IP on our servers. In addition when you book your anonymous access, you can pay comfortably with PayPal. Thus we receive no information about your payment data. We don't even need your name; an email-address is enough for us."

dujas · May 20, 2010, 16:55:05

Taken from Zen's newsletter:

QuoteWhen Ofcom initially release this Code in May it will only be applied to those ISP's with approximately 400,000 customers this means Zen Internet would be exempt as we have less than 400,000 customers.

It is the intention of Ofcom that they will follow the traffic between providers to ensure that those ISP's who see an increase in the volume of Copyright Infringement Notices (CIR's) being generated are also then brought into using the code. So just because an ISP like us may have less than 400,000 Subscribers does not mean they would be exempt in the future. It is likely Ofcom have decided to track this traffic to ensure subscribers who are caught out with one ISP don't simply switch to one that is excluded from the Code.

Ofcom will go after 'pirate friendly' ISPs even if small.

Rik · May 20, 2010, 16:59:39

Not surprising, I guess.

pctech · May 20, 2010, 18:13:47

I predict a sharp increase in the use of TOR.

An interesting situation will then arise, if most traffic on an ISP's network becomes encrypted then I suspect our technically ignorant leaders will push for something like VPN licencing and routing control (which of course won't work because it would be difficult for ISPs to enforce because the customer could be connecting to an overseas bank(

kinmel · May 20, 2010, 20:24:04

It will all prove impossible to manage.

They cannot kill Pirate Bay despite all the resources they throw at that; yesterday they killed Newzbin.com and today someone registered New-newzbin.com.

The best Usenet sites already offer the download on any port of your choice, including encrypted options such as NNTPS. The serious people have already moved off P2P

pctech · May 21, 2010, 15:44:39

I hate to say it but I think we might just end up like the folk in the Middle East where all ISPs connect to a central pipe controlled by a government department who impose blocking for unencrypted traffic.

If that were to happen I would quite happily pay extra for the use of a VPN proxy.