• 20 users on 24Mb ADSL sharing just 1Mb of bandwidth.
• All other users sharing 30Mb of bandwidth on old 20CN 8Mb ADSL.
• Added in enhanced care for all users at £8 a go.
• Forgot monthly broadband line rental charges at £7.90 a go.
• Will charge us for bandwidth across the 21CN network, plus charges for 3km of fibre across the London Docklands and we have to provide the BRAS – but yet they still have the balls to charge us £24k a year just for the privilege of doing business with the almighty BT Wholesale. Seriously, noone can explain what this charge is for given that they have separate charges for both bandwidth and fibre.

When I entered the correct figures into their shitty little price sheet, added in all the things they forgot, it came to a whopping £26 per user before any profit margin is added.

By comparison, Be/Fluidata is charging a non-recurring £3k to setup a simple crossconnect in any London Telehouse, and then all we pay are simple line charges depending on the product used, the average one of which is £16 per month.

It’s quite clear that BT Wholesale is not interested in providing any sort of service to other service providers. The ridiculous ordering/faults system, the outright denial of clear area-wide faults and now these ridiculous and quite arbitrary charges for access to their so-called 21st Century Network that still doesn’t properly support IPv6 are all very telling.

Yes.. that is a grand total of 43 seconds from reporting the fault to BT Wholesale rejecting it. This was even reported via KBD, which lets you confirm that the user has already attempted to replace his router, cables, filters and even tried from the test socket. 43 seconds is not enough time for most people to type that long-winded reply about SFI appointments, let alone for BT to run the necessary diagnostics to determine if there is a fault or not.

At my place of work we have suspected that BT was doing this for a long time as all too often, and 9 times out of 10 blatently obvious faults are rejected with the message “not due to a network fault”. Now I have a handful of faults, some where it was customer some, but some where there was genuine faults such as the DSLAM being faulty where BT has denied anything being wrong and cleared the fault in less than a minute.

The court documents detail how Louis Vuitton notified the ISP no less than 15 times – giving them ample opportunity and evidence to terminate the customer. Instead the ISP allowed that customer to juggles his sites around on different domain names and IP addresses and continue to sell the fake goods. The ISP was found guilty because they were complacent in allowing a customer to use their service to break the law. They tried to claim safe harbour under the DMCA act, however here we are exactly 2 years after the initial filing and the websites listed in the initial claim are still operating in Akanoc IP space.

It’s a tricky line for ISPs to cross. In my day to day work, I receive notices of copyright infringement from the MPAA/RIAA every week – but how are we supposed to act? We do not have the technology to actively monitor accused customers as the equipment required ranges into the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The MPAA/RIAA provide scant evidence – evidence which has been shown in the past to be very, very incorrect at times. We do what we can under UK law, notify the customer that we have received an infringement notice and notify the MPAA/RIAA that the customer has been warned.

The UK government wants to make deep packet inspection boxes mandatory for all ISPs, without regard to the cost  (which will cripple any medium-to-small service provider, if not put them out of business) and on top of that they appear to think that these boxes can log everything and anything regardless of software or encryption – there isn’t a DPI box yet which can monitor Second Life traffic… but that’s what the UK government is expecting ISPs to do.

However, this is missing a key point in this case in California: The ISP in question was provided with verifiable evidence that thier customer was selling fake, knockoff and illegal goods – and they declined to act on it (and in fact are still declining to act upon it to this day). Other ISPs spend a great deal of time and money ensuring that they are reacting to spam issues and hacked servers being used to host fake paypal logins. Akanoc Solutions Inc. took an active decision in deciding to not enforce their rights to terminate an obviously fraudulent customer and allowed them to continue in their business. They deserve everything they got.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a solicitor.

The US DMCA act allows a copyright holder to issue what is commonly known as a DMCA takedown notice. In some cases, such as MediaSentry, they’ll even try to insist that you completely disconnect the user.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the US DMCA act cannot be enforced in the UK. So the actual notice and demand is completely invalid. Does that mean you can ignore it? No. The US company could still pursue damages in a US court and most likely win. Once they have a judgement against you, they could then bring it to the UK – and as an ISP, you don’t want that to happen.

I handle it by contacting the user directly, informing them that we have a alleged copyright infringement against them and that the need to cease and desist using any Bittorrent, Limewire, eDonkey or whatever their flavour of Peer-2-Peer software is. After that, the response I send to the copyright holder is as follows:

Please note that we are a UK company and under UK law the DMCA act does not have a equivelent provision. However, in the intrests of protecting your represented copyright holder we have acted upon this notice and the user identified by IP address xx.xx.xx.xx has been reprimanded.

Under section 35 of the UK Data Protection Act of 1998, we cannot provide any additional information unless presented with a certified UK court order.

This fulfills two things: It informs the US company that you can’t apply US law to a UK company. Secondly, it shows that you’re still willing to comply and help out to the best of your ability. Section 35 of the UK Data Protection Act is real, and states that you cannot give information about your customers to a third party with a court order (or subpeona, for those in the US).

Example DMCA Takedown Notice

abuse@xxxxxxx.uk

Sunday, June 01, 2008
[company]
[address]

RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the following media:
XXXXXXXX

Dear Abuse Department:

We are writing this letter on behalf of XXXXXX. No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work without the express written permission of the copyright owner, permission which has not been granted to XX.XX.XX.XX.

We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a “peer-to-peer” service. The included documentation specifies the location on your network where the infringement occurred, as well as any other available identifying information. The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted media constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.

Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:

1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.

On behalf of XXXXXX, the owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its respective agents, or the law. Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.

Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID XXXXXXXXX. Your prompt response is requested.

Respectfully,

XXXXXXXX
SafeNet Enfocement Coordinator