The Digital Economy Bill has drawn widespread criticism from a range of commentators and internet rights groups since it was unveiled last week.

A Don't Disconnect Us online petition set up on the government's number10.gov.uk web site has already received over 19,000 signatures protesting against the proposed legislation.

TV presenter Stephen Fry, meanwhile, has used his considerable influence on Twitter to direct people to the petition urging them to sign.

One of the main areas of contention relates to how the Bill proposes to tackle file-sharing by suspending persistent offenders' internet accounts.

"Suspension of users' accounts as a potential sanction is wholly disproportionate, and is in direct opposition to the objectives outlined in the Digital Britain report to increase online participation," said Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA).

"ISPA is concerned that the bill will enable the suspension of users' accounts without a ruling from a judicial authority, and is in defiance of the EU Telecoms Package that guarantees users' rights to a presumption of innocence and effective judicial protection."

The Section 17 proposal by Lord Mandelson to allow any secretary of state to change copyright law without going through the usual parliamentary processes has also angered many commentators.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, an organisation which campaigns on digital issues, suggested that the Section 17 amendment could affect the ability of UK companies to innovate by making the laws on copyright "highly changeable".

"Furthermore, if the government were to make companies responsible for enforcement policies, which would be almost impossible to carry out, many companies may well be deterred from starting up," he said.

"For the likes of YouTube, Google and Facebook, which own huge amounts of content, it could also have huge ramifications."

Killock believes that the Section 17 amendment could be a tactical manoeuvre by Mandelson to divert people's attention from the disconnection proposals.

"The three-strikes proposal is very badly thought out, as is the rest of the Bill, and the amount of signatures on the online petition underlines this," he argued.

"It shows that people find the proposal offensive, and the government should be listening to the feedback the Bill is receiving."

Paddy Gardiner, a media partner at international law firm Eversheds, said that he is doubtful that the Bill will be passed in its current form.

"The strength of feeling the Bill has generated, and the valid concerns raised by ISPs about how they would enforce the legislation, suggests it is likely that the Bill will have to be watered down before it could be passed," he explained.

"As many people have pointed out, those who are determined to illegally share files could easily do it via other accounts, which could lead to innocent people being unfairly accused of file-sharing and risk being cut-off."

Gardiner added that the concerns over Section 17 seem "fully justified" because the changes were only "ushered in at the last moment".

"Giving any future secretary of state the ability to change copyright law without having to go through full judicial processes or debates is something that does worry me, but I would be surprised if it made it into the final Bill. "

However the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hit back, claiming that that the proposed changes in Section 17 are required to provide the flexibility to keep pace with fast-moving technologies and "new threats to the longer term sustainability of our creative industries".

A BIS spokesperson said that the Bill would not create any new criminal offences and was concerned with "civil infringement of copyright".

“The Bill clearly requires a full public consultation followed by a positive vote in both Houses of Parliament before the power could be used. So it would be wrong to suggest this power could be used by Ministers in an arbitrary way," the spokesperson continued.

“We know that we also have a responsibility to act fairly and responsibly. Any new legislation, including secondary legislation, must be proportionate and comply with both UK and EU law – including the European Convention on Human Rights.”