So, this is interesting, it turns out there already is an internet service provider in the UK that is cutting off naughty file-sharers. And given it's an ISP in the unique position of having a monopoly in its local area, those who lose their net access don't really have anywhere else to turn.
Hull-based Kingston Communications have reportedly operated a system of cutting off those who access unlicensed content via their Karoo broadband service for a while, though it's come to our attention now through a report by BBC Radio Humberside. According to the Beeb, when a content owner alerts Karoo that one of their customers is accessing or sharing content illegally, that customer has their internet access suspended. They must then sign a specific agreement confirming they will not do the naughty P2P thing again in order to be reconnected.
Karoo is in a totally unique position in the UK internet market in that the people of Hull have no other option for net provision. For slightly strange historical reasons, Kingston Communications is the only phone company operating in the area, not even BT has any lines in Hull.
Although under OfCom rules Kingston has to make its network available to other companies interested in providing phone or internet services to the city, any company wanting to do so would have to make considerable investments which would take forever to recoup because of the small size of the local market. Therefore, until the mobile internet becomes a viable alternative, the people of Hull rely on Kingston and Karoo to connect to the net.
This is all very interesting for the record companies and music publishers, of course, who have been investing much energy in the last couple of years to try to persuade internet service providers to take a more proactive role in policing piracy on the net, ultimately suspending or disconnecting those who persistently access illegal sources of content.
As previously reported, the ISPs have generally resisted taking on any such role, normally citing customer privacy concerns, cost factors and the flaws in piracy tracking technology. The music industry has responded by lobbying governments to force ISPs to take on a piracy policing role, lobbying activity which has been successful in France and New Zealand, but not here in the UK, where the recent 'Digital Britain' report was very lacklustre in its proposals on combating online piracy.
The music firms might, therefore, be rather pleased to hear that Kingston Communications, unlike their counterparts outside of Hull, are taking action against file-sharers. Though labels and publishers are wary of being seen as the bad guys in all this - the evil corporates who stalk the country late at night cutting off your internet without any warning. Some in Hull say Karoo suspend their file-sharing customers' net access far too quickly, and without giving file-sharers warning of the implications of their copyright infringing ways. The record industry, of course, has proposed what it calls a 'graduated response' system - normally dubbed three-strikes - in which file-sharers receive two warning letters before any service suspension. Somewhere in that process there should also be a system whereby falsely accused web-users can appeal.
Most consumer and web-user rights groups are sure to be critical of Karoo's policies in this domain. There are also potentially tricky legal issues at play too. Kingston presumably suspend a filesharer's net access on the basis that accessing illegal content puts the customer in breach of the service's terms and conditions. That's pretty straight forward.
But where three-strikes has been seriously discussed, so in France for example, there has been much debate about who should have the power to deprive people of something as crucial to modern living as internet access. The French Constitutional Council ruled only a judge in a court of law should have that power. Now in normal circumstances one ISP cutting you off for breach of contract does not equate the sort of disconnection enabled by an industry-wide three-strikes system, because you can always go and get internet services from somewhere else. In Hull, though, because of Kingston's monopoly, that's not an option. I suspect if they thought about it, the European Parliament would have something so say about that.
Kingson argue that their account-suspension system for file-sharers is about protecting their customers more than penalising them. When you file-share unlicensed content you become liable for copyright infringement litigation by the owners of that content - something many file-sharers don't really realise. By suspending a file-sharer's account and making them sign an 'I won't do it again' form Kingston are alerting their customers to the seriousness of the situation, and in doing so protecting them from a potential sudden lawsuit. We know no record company is actually interesting in filing such lawsuits anymore, but it's definitely a reasonable argument on Kingston's part.
Kingston's Director of Consumer & Publishing Services, Nick Thompson, told the BBC: "I think it's the responsible approach, because we are protecting people from illegal activity. There are no benefits for us. In fact, when we cut off customers we're actually reacting against our own interests because we don't charge customers for that period when the service is suspended".
In reality the number of people affected by Kingston's file-sharing policy probably isn't very high, but the ISP's policy is potentially an interesting case study for the music industry as they try to persuade government that net firms have to take a more proactive role in combating piracy. Given Kingston seem willing, perhaps labels could work with the ISP to develop and test out a less draconian system. Who knows? Though it seems certain that, in its current form, the Karoo file-sharing policy, if nothing else, will further piss off those Hull net users who already resent having no choice in who supplies their web access.