In a recent survey conducted by Aussie ISP 'Netspace', inital results showed that 78.9% of participants disagree with the Federal Government on making Content Filtering compulsory at an ISP level. If this is anything to go by at a national level, it appears that the Government has it blatantly wrong.

Around 10,000 customers took part in the survey, in which Netspace said was an 'overwhelming response'. Only a mere 13.6% supported a proposed content filtering mandate, with the remaining 7.1% undecided and 0.4% not responding. It really does send out a loud and clear message…. Australians do not want content filtering implemented at an ISP level!

Perhaps the average Aussie can see a bigger picture here than filtering child porn alone, and that it may refer to other fundamental principles such as the real motive for the introduction of filtering at an ISP level; Precedents that it will set; Effectiveness of an ISP filter to work appropriately; and the potential consequences that a decision like this may bring.

What are you concerns? Do they fit into any of the following categories:

A. Will an ISP filter stop illegal content completely? Industry experts are in agreeance and say 'No', as there are many different avenues to bypass or transmit content around an ISP filtering system.

B. What is the real motive behind an ISP content filter?  Is it to check election box promises? Control more than just illegal Internet content?

C. Once implemented, where does the filtering stop? Could the bodies in power that be impeach an individual's freedom of speech by removing content at will, regardless of agenda?

D. How much content will be 'wrongfully' removed by accident or otherwise?

E. What kind of consequences are involved for the ISP and end user? Will it slow down the Internet dramatically and or cause other types of technical conflicts?

I, for one, believe that it comes down to 'choice' and more to the point, a parent's responsibility, and that it should extend into respective Institutions (to a certain degree). However, just who should the primary responsibility of nurturing and protecting our children fall upon?

Are we now too busy to do this ourselves to the point that we need 'Big Brother' to intervene? Surely not. Could 'FREE' protection software act as an adequate alternative opposed to pre-emptive control, which in essence, may take away an individuals right to act 'freely'.

Internet content filtering should be available, but to what extent and controlled by whom? If you have something to say on this topic, by all means feel 'FREE" to post a reply.

Colin Jacobs, Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, has published a very interesting article on the controversial topic of Internet Censorship that includes findings from a study by Brooklyn Law School (Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship) which he has deemed a 'serious embarrassment'.

Outside Eastern countries, if the Internet Censorship plan was to be passed through the legislative process successfully, then Australia would become the first Western democracy to have such communist like controlling laws.

Mr Jacobs has begged to differ with the Government's censorship experiment by questioning it's legitimacy. In a Crikey.com.au blog titled 'The world smirks at Conroy's censorship plan' the study has shown, through a process based methodology, that there are serious doubts over the legitimacy of such an experiment.

The study's author applies a process-based methodology to determining censorship’s legitimacy by asking four questions. Is the country open about its censorship plans and the reason behind them? Is it transparent about what is to be restricted? How narrow is the filtering? And finally, are the processes and decision makers behind the scheme accountable? While the Government earns praise for openness (Internet filtering was a central campaign promise), serious issues are highlighted in the other three areas.

The blog is certainly an interested read, so if you aren't up to speed on the whole Internet Censorship uproar, I recommend you check it out.

Furthermore, the 'Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship' study can be downloaded here.

 

When it was revealed that Telstra held back the activation of hundreds of ADSL2 DSLAM Exchanges across Australia in 2008, many people where left bewildered. One one hand it was very disappointing to learn that Telstra was basically holding back the access of High Speed Broadband to thousands of Australians and therefore holding back potential economic growth. Then again, Telstra, as per usual, makes business decisions based on the best intentions of their shareholders. Sour grapes or smart business?

Now that the incumbent has been dumped from the National Broadband Network process, it's forced the Telco to rethink their strategy and it's through this that another Telstra Broadband revelation has emerged. Sol Trujillo, Telstra's CEO, told a Citigroup EMT conference recently that Telstra is now capable of rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 technology that could deliver their Cable Broadband customers a staggering 100 Mbps broadband speed. WoW! Not only could they deliver 100Mbps high speed broadband connectivity, but using this technology Telstra could match the Broadband speed of the upcoming NBN. On top of this they could also roll out this 100Mbps network upgrade faster than any competitor could instill their own.

This technology basically means that Telstra could compete with, if not exceed, the speeds in which the new NBN technology is likely to bring. Of course Telstra's DOCSIS 3.0 technology integration would be limited to major metropolitan areas where Telstra's existing HFC network already exists, however this is still a very large chunk of Australia's population. So when can we expect this to happen? Once again, it sounds like Telstra are going to hold back until they are forced to do so by competitive pressure.

 - Sol Trujillo

"Well the [DOCSIS 3.0] technology is now real, the technology is being deployed and we have that also as an option if somebody chooses to compete and to compete with us, the only difference is we'll be there a lot quicker a lot faster a lot bigger, a lot more integrated and with more capabilities than anybody else."