Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
My Lords, when a cost is placed on industry, ultimately there is a high likelihood that the consumer pays. It would be impossible to audit all ISPs to ensure that none of the cost associated with the notification process was passed on to consumers. Whether ISPs absorb all the costs of notification is a commercial matter for them, but if they pass all of it on, we do not think that that will be significant. Our high-end estimate is that the annual cost to a consumer per year would be around £2.50. We are not saying that that cost should be passed on but we are pointing out one of the difficulties of audit relative to the size of the problem. Amendment 108 is slightly different in that it would prevent the cost-sharing order passing on any of the cost of appeals to consumers. In large part, we agree. For practical purposes, we envisage all the costs associated with appeals falling on to industry, but not completely. There is an argument—here I refer to a comment that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made when he talked about a "minority"—that a large number of people, perhaps millions, are currently engaged in illegal file-sharing. Therefore, when we say "but not completely", we feel that there should be a modest fee, refundable if successful—I stress the words "refundable if successful" and "modest"—when a subscriber accesses the appeals system. Our only reason for including that caveat is that the aim is to prevent frivolous appeals that waste time and money and clog up the system. We understand the principle and do not in any way want there to be an adverse effect, preventing genuine appeals by charging a cost penalty. To make matters completely clear, I stress that we are not saying that we think such a fee should be introduced, as that also raises practical issues, such as looking at the need for exemptions and so on, but we think that we should leave the option open. Therefore, minds are by no means made up on this but I have drawn noble Lords’ attention to some of our concerns. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c1454-5
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Access Children Codes of practice Consumers Appeals Broadcasting Costs Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Channel Four Television Channel Four Communication Digital technology ICT EU law Film Internet Educational institutions Journalism National security Motor vehicles Protection Pornography Public service broadcasting Ofcom Music Radio Local broadcasting Registration Standards Universities Technology Channel Three Subscriptions Internet service providers Television licences
- Legislation
- Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:08:18 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626104
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626104
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_626104