• 

  Author comment by Alan Bell · 23/03/2010 at 1:57 pm

  I wrote this to Jeremy Hunt about a year ago.

  Dear Jeremy Hunt,

  I am concerned about the Coroners and Justice bill currently being
  debated. I am an IT professional and have studied the Data Protection
  Act as part of my education and professional development. Not being a
  Coroner or a Judge I had little interest in this new bill. I was very
  surprised to learn that clause 152 of this bill will rip apart and
  remake the Data Protection Act. This seems to me to be a very
  underhanded way of making law. If there is a need to change the DPA then
  the government should attempt to do so in a separate act with a relevant
  title.
  Please vote to have clause 152 completely removed from the bill leaving
  intact the data protection act. I will leave it to the coroners and
  judges to comment on the usefulness of the remainder of the bill.

  Yours sincerely,

  Alan Bell

  Reply

  • 

    Author comment by Alan Bell · 23/03/2010 at 2:20 pm

    And he responded thusly . . .

    Dear Mr Bell,

    Thank you very much for getting in touch about the proposals for new
    data-sharing powers in the Coroners and Justice Bill.

    I completely share your objections to this section of the Bill. These
    proposals would have a truly dramatic impact, allowing Ministers to make
    an ‘information sharing order’, meaning that a whole range of public
    servants could access the public’s personal data. Data could be shared
    between officials across Whitehall, with local authorities and even with
    companies in the private sector, simply in order to meet a Government
    policy objective.

    This threatens to open the floodgates to a continuous, uncontrolled and
    unchecked flow of personal data, and as is often the case with the
    Government, any safeguards will only be put in place after the Bill has
    already passed into law. This means that Parliament will be asked to
    vote on proposals which contain no safeguards and no serious sanctions
    for abuse of the new powers. This is simply unacceptable.

    The Government has displayed its incompetence and complacency in
    relation to data time and time again – it is no wonder public trust in
    the ability of the Government to keep our personal details safe is at an
    all-time low. Last year, HMRC lost the personal data of almost half the
    population, leaving over 7 million families worried about the security
    of their bank accounts. More recently, the details of thousands of
    criminals, held on a memory stick, were lost by a government contractor.
    Countless other cases of lost data have occurred, including the details
    of thousands of driving test candidates, prospective military recruits
    and over 5,000 prison service staff. Now, even the Prime Minister has
    admitted that he “can’t promise that every single item of information
    will always be safe.”

    In this context, I find it extraordinary that the Government has slipped
    these clauses into the Bill without any consultation or prior warning,
    and certainly without the case for them being made. I assure you that my
    Conservative colleagues and I will vigorously oppose this latest step
    towards creating a database state by stealth.

    Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me. As always,
    please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of any further
    assistance.

    Best wishes,

    Jeremy

    Jeremy Hunt
    Member of Parliament
    South West Surrey

    Reply

• 

  Alan Lord · 23/03/2010 at 6:24 pm

  I have written several times to Jeremy Hunt. Here is the most recent correspondence:

  Dear Jeremy Hunt,

  I’m very concerned that the Digital Economy Bill is being rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny. Will you be calling for a full debate on the Bill please?

  My concern is that it tampers with the balance of copyright law in the Internet age without a full appreciation of unintended consequences.

  The equivalent bill in the USA, the DMCA, has been a source of abusive attacks on free speech and business competition (outside the intended scope of the Act) from the beginning, and I fully expect that the Digital Economy Bill in its present form will likewise prove to hinder innovation and an open society.

  I have a copy of the recently announced Technology Manifesto on my computer’s desktop. This is a very encouraging document in many ways although I fear that the Conservative’s ability to implement much of it will be made significantly harder if the DEB is approved in its current form.

  Yours sincerely,

  Alan Lord

  And his reply:

  Dear Mr Lord,

  Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.

  For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries, and whilst we welcome aspects of the bill there are other areas of great concern to us.

  We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back. This must not be about propping up existing business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. That is why we were opposed to the original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29 which props up ITV regional news with BBC Licence Fee payers money.

  The Government’s failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concern that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. However in certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. I also believe they should be debated in the House of Commons before we agree to them. Only if we are confident that they have been given the scrutiny that they deserve will we support them

  It is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill’s proposals are not entirely accurate. People won’t be disconnected from the internet without due process. And it will only be a small minority of people who consistently infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice. Even then, they may be able to reconnect using another ISP immediately and without penalty.

  Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital sector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need.

  Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

  Best wishes,

  Jeremy Hunt

  Jeremy Hunt MP
  South West Surrey
  Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Reply

• 

  Alan Lord · 24/03/2010 at 4:38 pm

  I have recorded an earlier conversation with Jeremy Hunt here: http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2010/03/18/update-on-uk-govs-institutional-profligacy/

  Reply

• 

  Author comment by Alan Bell · 31/03/2010 at 11:58 am

  I just sent this to the candidates

  Dear Jeremy, Mike and Richard,

  If I vote for you as my representative at the General Election what will you do to help the the UK Free and Open Source software industry? We have world leading companies such as Canonical (who lead the Ubuntu Linux operating system) and Alfresco (who produce an industrial strength document management system) based in the UK and leading global communities but doing most of their commercial activity overseas. The UK public sector, and to a lesser extent private sector, have failed to embrace the community development model and persist in spending vast amounts of money with proprietary vendors outside the UK and indeed the EU when there are freely available alternatives. The opportunity exists for huge savings for UK PLC and to invest in local expertise and the UK Free software industry, all that is required is the willingness to take what is being offered. What will you do to help?

  Please be aware that I have published a copy of this letter on http://votegeek.org.uk/south-west-surrey and I intend to publish your reply there also for the benefit of other constituents.

  Alan Bell

  I included my address at the end.

  Reply

  • 

    Author comment by Alan Bell · 01/04/2010 at 2:11 pm

    I was very pleased to get this rather positive reply from the Labor Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Richart Mollet. Richard has been in the news a bit as a spokesperson for the BPI and has been lobbying in favour of the somewhat controversial Digital Economies Bill. I decided not to ask about that specifically in my letter because it is a current issue, and sadly unlikely to be one that the next parliament gets a say in. That said, here is his reply:

    Dear Alan
    Thank you very much for your email.

    Although I am aware of the broad outlines of this debate I would like to
    learn more. And so, if I were to become the Member of Parliament for South
    West Surrey I would be delighted to receive further briefings on this issue
    and would look to build my understanding of it.

    The technology sector in general, and the software sector in particular, are
    critical to our continued growth as an economy, and I would be amazed if
    more could not be done to ensure that it is promoted, supported and
    championed. I would do what I could to ensure that happened.

    As for the Labour Government’s record on this issue, I understand that the
    Cabinet Office published a policy in 2004 – updated in 2009 – stating that
    Government should seek to use Open Source software where it gives best value
    for money to the taxpayer in delivering public services. The NHS “spine”
    uses an open-sourced operating system and over 25% secondary schools have
    Linux operating on at least one computer. No doubt you will argue that this
    is not enough, and no doubt more can be done (generally, it always can).

    I would be interested to know how these efforts of the Labour Government in
    the UK to foster the open source sector compare with our nearest
    international competitors. But I am confident that the next Labour
    government will be keen to adopt open source solutions in procurement where
    possible and continue its engagement with the industry.

    However, this is a complicated issue, and I am sure that the proprietary
    side of the debate have valid views too. Personally as a firm believer in
    the value and role of copyright in music (and other creative sectors) I am
    alive to the powerful benefits which the copyright model can deliver.

    But as I say, there is much to to learn and to debate, so should I be
    fortunate enough to be elected to Parliament, please do keep in touch on
    this issue.

    Kind regards
    Richard Mollet
    Labour Party PPC for South West Surrey

    Reply

  • 

    Author comment by Alan Bell · 04/04/2010 at 2:56 pm

    this reply is from Luke Leighton, the Pirate Party candidate.

    alan, thank you for your questions. as a free software developer, i
    fully appreciate the extent and scale of the problems you describe. i
    was absolutely delighted when the report came out which advises
    government departments on “software procurement”:

    http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/Open_Source_Software.pdf

    i believe that this is absolutely fantastic yet does not go far
    enough: there is also the issue of open standards. for example,
    through some of my friends who deal with and maintain free software,
    they have become aware that there do exist “standards” for
    communication between software components in government contracts.

    unfortunately, whilst these standards are there to give the illusion
    of open-ness and fairness to the people bidding for the contract, the
    standards are NOT made available to people “outside” of the “clique”
    who normally bid. thus, without access to those software standards,
    any outside contractor – for example free software developers – cannot
    even begin to successfully bid for the contract!

    so – with that background in mind, i will be pushing for two things:

    1) the policy document requiring that open source software be
    considered as part of government contracts to become LAW, not just
    policy

    2) to pursue likewise a law which stipulates that government
    contracts (with the exception of classified work of course) use an
    open bidding process, published standards and published and
    unencumbered formats.

    also one thing that i am also advocating is that the lessons learned
    from Architecture (the Profession, with its Royal Society) should
    equally be applied to Software as well. think about it for a minute:
    the importance of having an Architect in place is to protect the
    public and the occupants of the building from hazardous and
    ill-informed decisions. with the increased dependence on Software for
    running the infrastructure of our country, why should it be any
    different? thus, i am advocating the creation of a British Royal
    Society of Software Architects.

    we have had some absolutely disastrous decisions been made over
    software procurement projects: twelve billion spent and escalating on
    the National Health Service “spine”. if we had a Software Architect
    who was LEGALLY responsible for ensuring that the project was properly
    scoped out in advance, whose job it was to spell out clearly what the
    costs were going to be, and who ensured that standards were followed,
    I feel certain that some of the incredibly high costs incurred in
    government software procurement projects could have been avoided.

    Ministers and Civil Servants simply do not have the knowledge or
    expertise to correctly or accurately spec out massive software
    projects: a Software Architect, by being LEGALLY liable for any
    mistakes made just as in Building Architecture, would make sure
    everything was up-front, made clear, and above-board.

    > Please be aware that I have published a copy of this letter on
    > http://votegeek.org.uk/south-west-surrey and I intend to publish your
    > reply there also for the benefit of other constituents.

    i wouldn’t have it any other way

    l.

    Reply

  • 

    Author comment by Alan Bell · 20/04/2010 at 9:45 am

    just had a great response from the libdem candidate Mike Simpson

    Dear Mr Bell,

    Firstly I would like to take the opportunity to draw to your attention my
    vocal opposition to the Digital Economy Bill during its speedy passage
    through parliament:
    http://www.libdemvoice.org/an-open-letter-to-jeremy-hunt-conservative-mp-for-south-west-surrey-18712.html
    and that I have since called for the Digital Economy Act 2010 to be
    repealed:
    http://shakinguppolitics.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/new-parliament-must-repeal-flawed-digital-economy-bill/
    .

    Now to the specific queries you raise in your email regarding the use of
    open source software and promotion of the community development model. I
    have been briefed about the issues raised in your open letter. I am aware
    of some of the benefits of using open source software and the community
    model, and I am also aware of some of the drawbacks.

    Community development projects have over much of the last 2 decades
    achieved a great deal. I’m aware of the rise and the strengths of the
    Linux platform, and that the Apache web server hosts more websites than any
    other.

    A community model with wide participation can lead to secure and resilient
    software, and the availability of free software has acted as a positive
    competitive force in the market; widespread availability of free software
    tools has significantly lowered the barriers to entry for small technology
    firms.

    But, as with nearly all software, there can be complications and hidden
    costs of ownership in the upgrade and maintenance of commercial
    deployments. Whilst many Open Source projects offer a convenient and
    competitive support package, many others leave the owner dependent on a
    highly-skilled and costly local support team.

    Quite simply I believe there is no room for dogma on either approach.
    Technology should be chosen for a particular use or project on its relative
    merits after studying all the competition. It is wrong that government
    projects should be biased against open source, but that does not
    necessarily mean that projects should be forced to adopt open source
    solutions.

    I share your concern about the vast sums of money wasted on government IT
    projects. As you hint, the reliance on a small number of preferred
    providers has in my view skewed the cost of government-purchased IT. This
    is the real problem I would like to tackle.

    I am committed to promoting fair and transparent procurement processes that
    allow small innovative companies to compete alongside incumbent IT
    providers, some of whom have consistently failed to live up to expectations
    yet continued to win lucrative government contracts.

    Many of the smaller technology companies in my constituency would benefit
    from the chance to showcase their public-sector solutions. Whether
    individual companies choose to adopt a community or a closed development
    model should be left to the company and the markets to decide and this
    requires a ‘level playing field’.

    The Liberal Democrats have a strong policy to extend the principles of
    fairness and promoting a level playing field for all internet-based
    businesses, not just in government IT projects. We support principles of
    network neutrality so that all content providers and site operators are
    treated equally by the ISPs. This is laid out in our fact sheet drawn up
    in response to the threat from the unbalanced and draconian Digital Economy
    Act: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29199796/Save-the-Net-Factsheet

    Thanks for your interest,

    Mike Simpson
    Liberal Democrat Candidate for South West Surrey

    Reply

  • 

    Author comment by Alan Bell · 05/05/2010 at 7:46 pm

    and now a response from my Green candidate. I am very pleased with the quality and detail of all the responses. Will be a tough decision in the polling booth tomorrow!

    Dear Alan

    Thanks for your message. I’m sorry it’s taken me a while to reply.

    I’ve thought about what you say from a Green angle. As such, I’m very much an advocate of drawing on local expertise. Also, I think that access to open source software is, on principle, in the interests of equity, fairness and inclusion (for individuals and businesses), which is also something that is important to me.

    I also believe (and this comes from my own experience) that an awful lot of people – in the private and public sectors – might have a fairly good idea of what they want, but only a thin grasp of what they really need when it comes to investing in software, but they can’t bring themselves to admit it. They then become prey to large, beguiling companies – and the result is ill-advised investment costing far more than it should – or, as you say, buying products that have freely available alternatives if only they’d look/trust them/knew about them etc.). Apart from stronger political leadership on this issue, better training from school up would help.

    In other words, I entirely see what you’re saying!

    Kind regards

    Cherry

    Reply

• 

  Chris Puttick · 21/04/2010 at 3:15 pm

  Dear Mike

  Not sure where you are getting your brief from, but there is no difference in the need to be internally reliant with open or closed source software; the difference is the degree of choice. Most large open source software products are not primarily volunteer-developed, and any of reasonable quality (where reasonable is defined as comparable to paid-for licence alternatives) will have many organisations willing to provide support on a commercial basis. While the amount of organisations willing to charge you for support are equally numerous for closed source applications, the difference between the two development models from a customer perspective is that your support partner for an open source product can fix any bugs found, add features you need etc.; with closed source software only the code owner can reliably fix bugs and add features.

  There are many reasons government should be mandated to prefer open source options; here’s two:

  Giving value back to the taxpayer (all expenditure on the open source product benefits citizens and other organisations who use the product).

  Mandating an open source preference provides a level playing field for all potential suppliers (any company can choose to open existing code and/or quote with an open source option).

  Regards

  Chris

  Reply

• 

  Alan Lord · 23/04/2010 at 1:24 pm

  I just sent this to the three main party candidates in my constituency:

  Dear Jeremy, Mike and Richard,

  As a citizen, voter, business-owner and geek, I was appalled by “the wash-up” process and how it totally undermined the democratic process.

  The DEB was a case in point. I doubt there have been many bills that caused such a backlash in the public and yet was rammed through by a handful of politicians who apparently barely understood the difference between a computer and a public telephone.

  Within just a few days of becoming law, it seems as though one aspect of the deb, which we all warned would happen, has started to happen. Free and public Wifi is being turned off for fear of litigation.

  http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/when-it-meets-politics/2010/04/has-the-digital-economy-prohib.html

  Quite frankly, this bill has made me so bloody angry that the position of the three main parties on it for a new Government is likely to be a determining factor in the way I vote in the election.

  From my understanding:

  * Mike, the Liberal Democrats have said they will repeal it.
  * Jeremy, you voted for it, but at least you turned up I suppose!
  * Richard, you are a representative of the BPI which allegedly wrote a significant portion of the Bill so I think I know where you stand.

  So I may make an informed decision on the 6th May, please could I ask all three of you to explain your personal and your party’s position on this ghastly piece of legislation should you be part of the next Government?

  Please be aware that I have published a copy of this letter on http://votegeek.org.uk/south-west-surrey and I intend to publish your replies there also for the benefit of the other constituents.

  Best Regards

  Alan Lord

  Address redacted

  Reply

• 

  Alan Lord · 23/04/2010 at 1:59 pm

  Reply from Mike Simpson almost immediately:

  Alan

  I am pleased to be able to tell you that I said I am committed to repeal
  the DEB BEFORE our Party leadership.

  Se my blog entries
  http://shakinguppolitics.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/open-letter-to-jeremy-hunt-re-debill/
  and
  http://shakinguppolitics.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/new-parliament-must-repeal-flawed-digital-economy-bill/

  And see my tweets on twitter @mikesimpsonuk

  Mike Simpson
  http://www.mikesimpson.org.uk

  Reply

• 

  Alan Lord · 25/04/2010 at 8:42 am

  A very detailed reply from Richard Mollet – Labour Party.

  Dear Alan

  Thank you for your email. As you note, I represent the BPI as my day job, but I am writing to you now in my capacity as the Labour Party parliamentary candidate for South West Surrey. Thank you for stating in advance that you will be publishing these replies – and I would be grateful if you would do so in full, or discuss any editing of the reply with me before publishing.

  Your email raises two main points: the process of scrutiny and the measures in the Act.

  On process, wash-up is a fact of Parliamentary life, and is regularly used to ensure that important pieces of legislation do not get dropped when a Parliamentary session ends. There was nothing unusual about the Digital Economy Bill going through this process and, as you will no doubt have seen, other Bills went through the process at the end of the session.

  The Labour Party has a manifesto commitment to introduce Fixed Term Parliaments and it is a likely corollary of that for the wash-up process to disappear (if you know in advance how long the Parliament session is going to be, business managers can better organise Bills accordingly). This is one of the many elements of democratic reform we are advocating to make Parliament more accountable. There will also be a referendum on the Alternative Vote electoral system and a move to a fully elected Second Chamber, to finally do away with the outdated hereditary system in the Lords.

  As to scrutiny, ironically, one of the reasons that the Bill ran out of time in the House of Commons was that it received such detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Business managers there had initially tabled for around four sessions at Committee Stage. As you know, in the event there were seven, with a further three at Report Stage. As some opponents of the Bill noted at the time (January) this level of interrogation by the Lords was unusual. Following that process significant amendments were made to the legislation. And in the Commons, although there was not a line-by-line scrutiny, the two days of debate were pretty intensive – not the 90 minutes some were predicting beforehand. And of course the Bill was amended quite substantially by the Commons (whole clauses on Ofcom powers, regional media ownership and orphan works were chopped out).

  In terms of the public response, it is not uncommon for legislation to generate both support and opposition. Opposition to many Labour measures – notably the Hunting with Dogs Act – has on occasion been incredibly vociferous. A huge number of people demonstrated against that Bill (by several orders of magnitude more than the 150 at the ORG demonstration against the Digital Economy Bill) and it was opposed by a vast swathe of the population, many of whom I now encounter when canvassing in South West Surrey! But the existence of opposition does not necessarily mean that Government should not act – and I’ll come on to why the Labour government was right to take action against illegal uploading and downloading in a moment. Furthermore, you fail to recognise that there was a great deal of support for the Bill, not least from the community of people whose jobs depend upon earning royalties from copyright in trades unions such as the Musicians Union, Equity, BECTU and the TUC. Yes, commercial interests were also involved: but for every rightsholder interest arguing in favour of the Bill, there was an ISP interest arguing just as strongly against it.

  As for some wi-fi operators turning off their service, I think they are acting precipitously and erroneously. The measures in the Digital Economy Act do not come into force until June, and even that is unlikely since a Code of operation first needs to be put into place. Ofcom are estimating that January 2011 is the most likely start date. And between now and then Ofcom will run a consultation on how the Code should work, and chief amongst their concerns will be the treatment of wifi and open access facilities, so as to ensure that there is a proportionate and balanced approach to infringement on these networks. Any wifi operators turning their service off now are no doubt doing so having read some of the inaccurate and over-blown commentary by opponents of the Act, who at many stages during the whole debate appear to be more interested in describing false doomsday scenarios, than actually reading the measures in the Act. As an example, the ORG commonly say that the Act will lead to “automatic disconnection” for offenders. It is impossible, on any reasonable reading of the Act’s provisions especially those regarding subscriber appeals, to arrive at that summary.

  In terms of the measures themselves, Labour believes that the copyright industries are a vital part of our economic and cultural life, that copyright infringement unfairly deprives these businesses of revenue and to a degree which causes serious economic harm, and that action needs to be taken to address online copyright infringement in particular. You can – or I’m sure will have – read a fuller justification for the measures in the numerous Government publications on this issue, or indeed the speeches of Ministers during the passage of the Act.

  You ask for a personal position too, so having already taken off my BPI hat I’ll also take off my Labour candidate hat. I am a musician. I am proud to be in receipt of MU sponsorship for my campaign. I write and perform music regularly (I also acted a lot at university) and so have the most profound respect and admiration for those who do so professionally. I also greatly admire artists in other disciplines where I have no skill myself, such as the visual arts. I think excellence in creativity is what marks out a civilised society. But excellence does not come about by accident. On the part of the creators it requires lives of dedication, a concentration of effort and resources; on the part of wider society it requires strong respect and support for the effort being made. As a socialist I also hold very strongly to the belief that everybody has the right to be fairly rewarded for their work; that there is a moral imperative for their skills, talent and time to be given their due reward. I also believe that the businesses that support creators need to be rewarded too, or otherwise they will not be able to perform their functions well enough – which ultimately deprives the creative workforce of employment. So it offends my moral and political sensibilities when someone takes a work in which they do not own the copyright, and uploads it to the internet where others can access it for free, thus depriving the artist of potential reward. Sure, some people may access it and then go and buy it. But in nothing like the sufficient numbers to make it possible to say that illegal uploading is a form of free marketing, as some people wrongly assert. So that is why irrespective of my professional or party political affiliations I am a strong supporter of the Digital Economy Act.

  And finally, you are right to note that it has been alleged that I, or the BPI, “wrote a significant proportion of the Bill”. This is an absurd myth.

  Kind regards

  Richard Mollet
  Labour Party Parliamentary Candidate
  South West Surrey
  http://www.richardmollet.net

  Reply

• 

  Alan Lord · 26/04/2010 at 6:41 pm

  And, Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative candidate’s response is now here too:

  Dear Mr Lord,

  Thank you for your email about the Digital Economy Act. I share your anger about the way the Government rushed this piece of legislation through in the dying days of the previous Parliament. There was absolutely no reason why they couldn’t have found more time for the House of Commons to consider these measures.

  As you rightly mentioned we supported most of the elements in the Bill – and blocked the ones we didn’t. I am on record as saying that I think this Bill will create a proportionate and reasonable system that will help tackle online piracy. However, should it prove not to work or to impact significantly on legitimate consumers then we reserve the right to go back and look at the Act.

  It is worth pointing out that the Liberal Democrats are completely confused on this issue. Liberal Democrats introduced some of the measures designed to tackle piracy into the Bill. They then subsequently decided to try and block them. Recently Nick Clegg has said he would repeal the Act, and then his spokesmen clarified that they wouldn’t. I’m afraid it is very difficult to take any of their pledges or promises on this very important policy area seriously.

  It is important to point out that the measures on digital piracy have yet to come fully into force as yet. Ofcom has not finished drawing up the codes that are needed. In addition there can be no moves to suspend people’s internet accounts for at least 12 months. So there is no reason why wifi operators should stop providing these services. Issues around wifi can be addressed when these codes are drawn up. It looks like there has been some misunderstanding, largely based on the media reporting of the Bill. I would strongly suggest that if you know of anyone who is planning to stop providing a WiFi network then do encourage them to get in touch with Ofcom.

  Thanks for getting in touch and do let me know if I can help in any other way.

  Best wishes,

  Jeremy

  Reply

• 

  Alan Bell · 03/05/2010 at 3:05 pm

  I have just been reading an account of a hustings for the constituency
  http://williamheath.net/?p=335

  Reply

Leave a Reply