The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) and consumer group Choice also accused movie and TV rights holders of "stacking" the body that will oversee the scheme, saying a draft industry code was "punitive" towards consumers.

Optus, ACCAN and Choice's views were expressed in a number of submissions to the draft anti-piracy code which the industry is working on with rights holders.

ACCAN chief executive Teresa Corbin called the proposed $25 fee a "fine by stealth", and warned that costs of administering the scheme would "ultimately fall on consumers in the form of higher internet access charges".

Optus agreed the fee "should be removed" and said rights holders should pay compensation to internet service providers like itself for "all aspects" of implementing the scheme in order to mitigate price hikes.

The code, drafted by the Communications Alliance, which represents telcos, would see internet providers first send three warning letters on behalf of rights holders to customers suspected of downloading copyrighted content illicitly, before passing customer account and contact details on (through a court process likely to be unchallenged by telcos) to rights holders to pursue them through the courts for damages.

But Ms Corbin questioned the impartiality of the scheme, saying the Copyright Information Panel, which would be tasked with appointing an adjudication panel to hear individual infringement cases, was "stacked with four industry representatives and only a single consumer member".

As currently drafted, the panel would have two representatives from the telco industry, two from the rights holders, and one from a consumer group, which could potentially be ACCAN or Choice.

"We have serious concerns about the ability of this body to make sure consumers get a fair hearing," she said.

Choice echoed this view, calling it "a notice scheme run by industry with complaints assessed by industry, removing a consumer's right to a fair review".

ACCAN said the role of appointing an adjudicator should be left to the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.

Both consumer groups as well as Optus also raised concerns about the scheme's silence on "speculative invoicing", which has seen rights holders overseas send letters to consumers demanding thousands of dollars for alleged illicit downloading of copyrighted content.

Optus called such practices "inappropriate" and said the scheme, as it was currently worded, left the door open to them.

Consumer group Choice demanded more detail in the code to better indicate how many Australians would potentially suffer such "bullying tactics".

ACCAN called for a clause to be added to the code which would disqualify rights holders from the scheme if they engaged in speculative invoicing.

John Stanton, chief executive of the industry body Communications Alliance, which drafted the code, told Fairfax Media it would soon respond to "key themes" emerging from the public response in revising the code.

Industry has until April 8 to submit a final version of the voluntary code to government. If rights holders and internet providers can't reach agreement, the government has said it may ask the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to impose a binding code.

Rights holders and telcos continue to haggle over who will bear the brunt of costs associated with the scheme, which have still not been quantified.

In its submission, ACCAN called for a government-led cost-benefit analysis of the scheme, and said costs should be kept to "an absolute minimum".

"We still have no idea what this scheme will cost and many of its proposed benefits are spurious," the group's Ms Corbin said.

Last month Choice launched a campaign which likened the code to mediaeval-style law, tying the issue back to one of the world's most-pirated shows, mediaeval fantasy series Game of Thrones.

with Ben Grubb