TV or not TV? That is the question.
Over the years I've often highlighted the fact that the law is struggling to keep pace with internet technology in terms of meaningful regulation.
There is no evidence that this is likely to change and if anything the legal dilemmas which arise following the introduction of the latest addition to the suite of internet based tools are set to increase in number, and quicken in arrival.
A case in point is the Communications Act which became law last year.
It created Ofcom, the broadcast super regulator designed for the 21st century. However, Ofcom has no power to regulate internet content.
The problem is that as each month rolls by it is becoming abundantly clear that high speed broadband services are threatening traditional means of broadcast delivery.
It's all so confusing to consumers who for the most part are overwhelmed by the range of media distribution channels for music, film and, importantly for the purpose of this article, television.
The thing that each of these media have in common is that they are internet based and come to you via the home PC which itself is becoming an indispensable item around the house.
There are legal music websites, illegal music websites. Websites that allow you to rent movies. Websites that enable the unlawful downloading of film content.
Then, if you do ever leave the environs of your home, there are i-pods which themselves are taking on a new role as communication tools through the practise of Podcasting.
To step outside the web arena momentarily let's not forget digital interactive TV.
Despite the array of means by which you can access media content TV on demand over broadband is going to become a significant market.
So, what's the problem? Well of course people understand the concept of regulating television broadcasts. They can rely on the 9pm watershed and whatever you might stray upon when flicking through the channels, whilst you might query its quality, it's not likely to seriously cause offence.
The internet though operates on another plane. ISPs who make possible your access are regarded under the E Commerce Regulations 2002 as not responsible for the content which crosses their networks.
There is no one to hold to account for content which could never be broadcast by transmitter, satellite or cable.
The argument in reply is that traditional broadcasts are 'pushed' by the broadcaster whereas internet TV on demand is 'pulled' by the viewer so clearly can be controlled at the point of access.
It's not a terribly convincing rebuttal.
The fact is this law, like every other recent addition to the statute book aimed at regulating the internet, is supposed to be technology neutral.
That means that it doesn't become defunct if a new technology comes along which can still be shoehorned into the terms of the legislation.
Little more than a year after introduction I think it's already time to pretend to brush off the dust which has scarcely had time to settle and look anew at the regulation of internet broadcasting.
* Andrew Sparrow is Founder and Principal Lawyer with Lecote Solicitors, Birmingham based specialist New Media and internet law firm and can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org