At the moment the nearest thing we have to a superhighway is the Internet.

This global collection of networks connected to each other has been described erroneously as a telephone system for computers.

From a legal perspective this is certainly inaccurate since telephone systems around the world are generally subject to regulation by central government.The Internet is unique in that its operation as a network is completely free of outside regulation; it does not have a regulatory body, and does not have specific legislation written to apply to it.

However, legislation which applies to the public telephone network applies to such networks when they are used in the Internet, eg for dial up and leased line access.The Internet was initially established in the USA by government bodies and academics to allow them to share information easily.

It has since grown significantly and is now a highly attractive commercial vehicle from which not only information can be obtained, but also on which business can be transacted.Linking to the Internet from a technical point of view is easy for the user.

One needs software, a PC and a modem, all of which can be obtained from a service provider.

The larger service providers will do everything to connect a new user, including training and advising on how to maintain security of the user's own system.The relationship with that service provider will be set out in a contract in which it will seek to exclude its liability, for example, due to the user receiving or accessing pornographi c or defamatory material or having its copyright infringed.

That contract enables the service provider to disconnect the user for breach of the contract or for breach of legislation.The various networks that join together to form the Internet largely operate on the basis of an informal club.

They have acceptable user policies (AUP), which are their codes of conduct, but little else that obliges them to maintain their own networks.

The larger service providers ensure that they have various routes through the highway, to ensure that if there is a crash on any one route they can redirect customer traffic on another route, so service is almost guaranteed.Knowing that service is of a consistently high standard enables companies to look to ways of making their businesses more competitive, and hopefully more profitable, by using the Internet.

This can be done not just by having access to more information through academic and other databases around the world, or by being able to give customers information and responses to queries easily by e mail, but also by selling and, in the case of certain products (for example, computer software), supplying those products over the Internet.Think of the ease and reduced costs involved by ordering software by e mail, sending the licence terms by e mail, paying by sending one's credit card number by e mail or similar means, all prior to downloading the software.

All very fast and effective, but what are the legal risks, and what are the legal protections available for abuse of such commercial use of the Internet?Protection of copyright material is important, such as with software.

In the UK copyright does not need to be registered to afford protection, but in some countries it does.

Because the Internet is a worldwide network, the originator of the work needs to consider not only the copyright law in the country where the material is created and released on to the Internet, but also all other countries where that information can be downloaded and copied, via the Internet, in order to assess whether legally the material is protected in other territories.The practicalities of enforcing copyright protection and policing infringement also need to be considered.

It is far easier for the unintentional infringer to copy software or other recorded material to friends and colleagues via the Internet than by duplicating a diskette or copying an article.

Also, with diskette-captured software it is easier to build in technical means of preventing copying than with copying over the Internet.

Hence, although legal protection is given in the same way that it is given to material outside the Internet, it is very difficult to police infringement of copyright without technical means being built into the product.There have been a few copyright infringement cases regarding the Internet in the USA, but these all concerned the running of bulletin boards allowing access to and downloading of data infringing third party copyright.

The persons responsible for running those boards were not found liable for infringing copyright, even though they knew that infringing material was being put on those boards.

Although it is still too early to say categorically, it is likely that other legal systems will follow this rationale.Confidentiality of information and security is also an important issue, especially if credit card numbers and other confidential information is communicated via the Internet.

There are varying degrees of security which can be provided, and one's own computer network can certainly be secured from the ou tside world.

The good service provider can give you advice on the different levels of security that are available and the risks attached to each of the lesser categories.

It is also worth noting that unauthorised hacking is a criminal offence in the UK with offenders facing imprisonment, which should help to deter people hacking into the UK.If the Internet is to become a widespread commercial means of doing business the issue arises of whether it should be regulated, for example, by OFTEL in the uK.The technocrats of the Internet and the service providers would raise their hands in horror at this suggestion on the basis that, if something works, why intervene? However, we are faced with a network, upon which businesses will come to rely, with no formal minimum standards, and effectively, self-regulating.Although this has worked while it has been little more than an academic and government club, it is open to abuse by the less honourable.

For that reason regulation of some description seems sensible, but only by a body that understands what the Internet really is, and the opportunities available with it.The latest entrant to the Internet market in the UK is BT.

BT seems to be cautious; although it is keeping its future plans relating to the Internet to itself, it is probable that its service will be dial up operated and not leased line, thereby not interfering with its core business.The remaining open question is whether Mercury will follow BT's impending entrance to this market.

It would be an ideal means for Mercury to increase traffic and thereby help defend competition from the new entrants to the deregulated telecommunication market in the UK.

We wait to see what Mercury does in this respect, but with its apparent move from being a public telecommunications operator (PTO) towards being a value added service provider, the odds are that it will need to provide an Internet service within the next six months.

It would be strange if Mercury did not take advantage of the opportunities which the Internet provides.

These developments rubber-stamp the importance and credibility of the Internet in the commercial world.We also see BT offering different on-line services such as its trials of video-on-demand which, if recent press reports are to be believed, is now within their technological capability.

Whether or not BT can offer video-on-demand under the terms of its PTO licence is another matter.The PTO licence granted to BT prevents it from offering services which consist of the conveyance of messages comprising cable programmes as defined under s.58 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

S.58 has now been replaced by provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 including, inter alia, s.72.

However, the wording in s.58 is not mirrored exactly by s.72.

It is this loophole which BT is trying to exploit.S.58 and its defining section, s.56, referred to a service being received simultaneously in two or more dwelling houses.

The new Broadcasting Act definition of a cable programme service is slightly more ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean that it is the programme which must be receivable simultaneously, rather than the service.In September 1993 the Independent Television Commission effectively ducked the issue of whether BT could offer video-on-demand, saying that this issue is one which could only be definitely resolved by the courts.

The service which BT proposes to offer is transmission of a particular programme to one household at a time.

With individual households being able to choose the programme which they receive and wh en they receive it, it is unlikely that two households would receive a simultaneous broadcast.If the matter ever comes to court BT is expected to argue that the service it operates does not fall within the s.72 definition, and therefore its licence does not prevent it from operating video-on-demand.

Issues of copyright, pornography and defamation are unlikely to be a problem for BT, since it will control what is delivered by buying in content from producers directly.Although video-on-demand is separate from the Internet, if it comes it will increase the public awareness of the forthcoming arrival of the information superhighway.

The method of delivery to the consumer is largely irrelevant, providing that the cost and the quality of service are acceptable.

However, whether the consumer will be willing to pay for a number of similar alternatives remains to be seen.