-
Website
http://www.inquisitr.com/ -
Original page
http://www.inquisitr.com/17448/the-economic-cost-of-internet-censorship-in-australia/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I for one will complain bitterly if I have to pay more for a filter I won't be using. (Will implement VPN to bypass it).
You got the k right for kilobits/second (kb/s)
BUT
m= milli (1000ths)
M=mega(millions)
My internet connection is slow enough without reducing its speed to 0.006 bits per second.
1- Internet filter will greatly reduce crime which has rocketed since the net has increased capability and will continue to do so eg. Child Porn, Fraud, Hacking, Spam, Identity Theft etc. Factor in social and economic cost diretly, indirectly
2. Net capacity will greatly increase in speed due to 1- SXC, Telstra Endeavour, PIPE now have separate links to O/s for internet traffic, with faster IP Routing and DWDM tx equip greatly reduce latency. Netfilters run upto 10Gbps. New technology and infrastructure investment simply smashes through all the barriers, it makes all these arguments about latency and capacity very lame indeeed.
3. ISPs dont want the filter because 1- it reduces their users on high data plans who use it primarily for downloading copyright material, 2- they dont want to invest in anything other than carriage, ie. ADSL ports, as it does not make a return on investment.
4. The filter will increase business and consumer confidence, and reduce cost to households and businesses in having to set up infrastructure and software, plus workforce to protect their network . Businesses can safely expand into the internet without fear of attacks to both them and their customers. Education will improve as the internet becomes a safer place for minors.
What about the increase in crime when the ACMA blacklist is publicly leaked?
You should know that the filter will likely be applied before the POP and any speed improvements thereafter will still be diminished. Also PIPEs PPC-1 project has not been completed yet and it is only expected to reduce costs and not improve speeds.
Of course ISPs don't want to invest in anything that doesn't make a return, that is a standard business practice.
It will not reduce costs for households or business as they will be the ones wearing the costs of the filter, whether they want it or not. And I would imagine most businesses would continue to run transparent proxies or firewalls to prevent access to unproductive sites that would not be blocked by the filter - which would lead to a duplicate cost.
You seem to have a slight grasp of the networking industry but definitely lack any economic credentials - wouldn't happen to be someone studying for Cisco qualifications without any practical experience yet?
True. The other point worth noting here, if there was enough people wanting filtered internet, there'd be a buisness case for an ISP creating voluntarily filtered accounts. It would offer them differentiation from unfiltered ISP accounts and a very competititve edge amongst users wanting a filtered connection.
Since the market has not taken this opportunity (which they're no doubt aware of), there is either minimal demand or significant costs (upfront costs or severe deterioration of service).
If filtering by a section of the community and they're prepared to pay for it, then the services will be available. Why force it on all and make all pay for a service wanted by few? Clearly the few want it not just for themselves!
2) Does it make sense to increase network speed with the national broadband network, only to then reduce it with the filter? Yes, computer network technology is always getting faster and more reliable, but the filter will still slow down network speeds by as much as 75% - that means my 10Mbps connection will drop to 2.5Mbps.
3) ISPs also don't want the filter because it will be expensive to implement, maintain and administrate.
4) I'm not sure how business and consumer confidence can be increased by the content filter, and the cost to households to set up a client-side filter was zero thanks to the freely available filtering software provided by the Liberal government. "Businesses can safely expand into the internet without fear of attacks to both them and their customers." - how will the content filter prevent attacks? If you mean DDoS or the like then this filter will not do anything to prevent that. Schools already block inappropriate material with their own filters and it isn't difficult to monitor what your children do on the home computer.
“Businesses can safely expand into the internet without fear of attacks”: Oh yeah, its slowed to a crawl. The images don’t ‘attack’ because of that.
This post has to be a ‘lame’ joke, surely?
Mate get your facts right, this has potential to ecconomically do damage to the industries which rely on the internet for communication and business dealings, e-mails ect.
You are obviously not well informed of the minimal impacts this filter WILL have on all Australians including you.
You may be raving support about it now.
But I don't think many people are going to tolerate this government trying to enforce mandatory censorship on all Australians and may be a big voting swing issue come next election.
At least we know with the Liberals what their stance is that it is not feasible yet, it needs to be worked on, so people who want it can opt-in to filtering.
There is no such option under this plan.
Steven Conroy, Bernadette McMenamin and Jm Wallace are fools, futhermore
The fact the the NET Filter will drive crime underground is a GOOD THING. Would you rather it be widespread and everywhere? Driving it underground makes it harder for criminals who make child porn, engage in Fraud and identity theft etc. at the same time making them easier by our authorities to catch. Its a way if isolating the source for those who engage in it on both ends.
The filter of course will be at Internet gateway POP isnt that obvious? PIPE will complete its a matter of who will do it. Telstras endeavour and SXC have Gb to Tb capaciities. Filters work at 10Gbps capacity. As I said, technology improvements in our next gen networks makes all these doubts about 'performance' merely lies themselves.
Of course it will reduce cost for business, YOU IDIOT. its obvious. stop your lame apologist arguments and get with the real and adult world and stop being a retarded net geek.
The cost to consumers, another myth , since most carriers already to have netfilters in place, they just dont filter the traffic in the manner planned, can you name me a carrier or ISP that doesnt not own firewall hardware at the POP?
Your entire comment is so poorly reasoned it makes me want to wrap a cat5e crossover cable around your neck.
I'm curious who you work for "technology improvements in our next gen networks". You wouldn't happen to be in the ministers office would you?
My problem with the whole proposal is the fact that it will not meet its goals. There is no way to do what the Government wants. It will just end up costing joe average a lot of money that doesn't nothing to "protect the children"
1. the major cause of spam, identity theft, ect is Email and people giving out their details - old style confidence tricks modernized for the digital age - No filter will stop people being stupid.
2. Child porn is not traded by websites or bit torrent, but but other methods that will NOT be blocked by the proposed "filter". eg FTP (for example)
3. The last filter was broken by a 15year old in a matter of hours - why do you think this will be any different? no matter how good you are or think you are, there is always someone better who will provide others with a "solution"
4. Parents should be supervising their kids while on the net - if you don't know how, then find out and learn - not expect a government solution - i have three children and have a good idea what they are doing whilst on the net.
5. not all of us on high usage plans "use it primarily for downloading copyright material" I am a computer hardware technician, i use my monthly quota to download windows updates (because Microsoft won't give me support due to not selling enough copies of windows per month), patches, drivers and antivirus, adaware updates, specific tools to repair known problems, etc. i also play online games and download LEGAL movies, etc using bit torrent - check out nbc, eztv, etc - my usage is about 60 gig per month btw - no illegal material whatsoever.
6. This is also despite the fact that my ISP blocks bit torrent and has accused me of illegal activities - including when I was off-line for being reported as a source of spam. It is very hard for me to be doing anything in the three hours i was disconnected - no apology, no repercussions on the false allegations either! maybe we should be able to sue them and get a significant amount for tarnishing our good name and preventing my business?
7. the NZ approach seems to be fairer, but still needs to be slanted further against the RIAA, etc - what they are doing to IInet is illegal (I'm studying law at uni) but throw enough money around and you can win anyway.
8. I agree - ISP's don't want to invest in any infrastructure - sasktel anyone? we are now behind the world in internet speeds - even North Korea has a better telecommunications system - thanks to Telstra. An guess what - they have no limits, quotas or other crap to put up with.
9. Business confidence increase? encourage investment? reduce costs? How his is going to be achieved is beyond me - other than the obvious of business re-locating outside Australia. Even at the best, filter software has to be taught what to block - ever use voice recognition software? after about six months I gave up and learnt to type instead - even if just in this period business will be damaged and opportunity lost - enough opportunities lost and the business will fail - no question it will be too late for many good, competitive businesses and the baddies no worse off.
10. see above about how attacks occur - subscribe to Auscert and learn about what the threats actually are and how these people (lowlifes) operate.
11. i have sent a customer a hard drive with files on it through the mail. It had windows Xp, plus antivius, antispyware, plus other programs, but could just as easily have contained anything i liked - how will your filtering software stop this - if people really want files, they will get them. Typical politician - make it seem like you are doing something while not really doing anything and cost the taxpayers a fortune while doing it!
2. Of course child porn is traded via website, in additional to any other means of transfering data. Blocking websites and newsgroups, ftp servers on the fly is a good measure to make it tough for these crims to sell their wares.
3. the filter will not stop technically capable people, but it will protect the vast majority of users, in addition make it difficult for those who want to commit crimes on the net in doing so.
4. parents should supervise, the netfilter will make the job easier. It will make it easier for schools to allow students use the internet knowing that it will be safe for them to do so.
5. Most do. See iiNet court case for example.
6. Your ISP accused you of downloading copyright material probably because that is what you did.
7. What is happening to iiNet is under debate, which is why they are in court?
8. How is it a fault of Telstra when for decades Optus owned the only monopolistic internet pipe , the SXC? Which most internet traffic to and from Australia.
9. Of course it will increase business and household use, when it is safe for businesses to do so. The filter doesnt affect you if you arent doing anything illegal.
10. The dynamic nature of the filter is a much better tool that what we have now, which is implemented at the discretion by the serivce provider, if at all.
11. For a long time Dodo did not have a firewall in the network, after a minute of connecting, pop ups began appearing, and a PC would have been secretly infected via flaws in XP and IE. Most computers that are connected to the net have infection of some sort, all the more need for protection for the average user.
"You're all just basing your arguments on hysterics and very biased views from companies with vested interests in not letting the filter go ahead." - We're basing our arguments on the ACMA's tests on possible filter techniques, and the tests show that the most accurate filters were the ones with the most negative effects.
We are not basing our arguments on hysterics. We are basing them on what a government agency has told us.
"The fact the the NET Filter will ..." - Firstly, how is it widespread and everywhere? If this was true, I'd be scared of running into it the moment I click Search on Google. Secondly, authorities can't catch people they do not know about. If they weren't using encryption before, they will be when this thing goes up, and then they'll be impossible to catch.
"As I said, technology improvements in our next gen networks makes all these doubts about 'performance' merely lies themselves." - Again, I refer you to the ACMA trials, which state the figures we have been quoting. Go check them out yourself, because it clearly sounds like you haven't bothered.
"The cost to consumers, another myth..." - These filters are proxies that the customer must connect to manually (thus an opt-in service). Then, only people who want the filter will be routed through the filter, not everyone on the goddamn ISP. Right there is the flaw you need to realise in that argument.
Quick question :)
In what manner does the filter decrease download speeds?
I know it's not as simple as a 20% across the board reduction but I'm not sure of the impact.
Since the filter is at the ISP, I assume that a 1.5Mbps will still use the full 1.5Mbps - but that response times will decrease because a site won't start loading until the filter has permitted it. So for a "light" site with lots of small gifs etc our limit would cease to be our internet connection and instead become the filter speed. A 20Mbps connection and a 1.5Mbps, on this light site, might both become 1Mbps. A site with big graphics files might keep a higher speed as once authorised the data flow through. Or is it (against my logic) a bottleneck that reduces all sites to 6Mbps... thus only the faster users would notice it?
As for proof of a speed decrease: did you miss the govermnent trials of various filter software? ALL of the tested filters had a negative impact on network performance.
Your obviously a much more intellegent than me when it comes to these matters so why dont you explain in detail for us simple minded folk just how things will work because so far im yet to see any concrete evidence?
1- the internet and information economy cannot grow into the future
2- negative social impact as a result of an anarchistic system will increasily have determinental effects on society.
Looking at ecosystems and socio-economic systems that thrive, you need to have freedom in combination with authority. Currently the internet is a system without a central law agency but with no police officers. It can only grow to an extent before the system begins to fall apart. Now what I am bringing this up is because the netfilter is designed for the future in mind, NBN and beyond. NBN anticipates rapid grown in information adoption and will fill every aspect of our lives. The arguments put forward by anti-filter groups fail to understand the importance of a governing and protecting body because they are only at in the present, and not with foresight. This is also coupled by testing and planning that is based on current technology and systems, which has been pointed out by some users here. The fact that technology expands exponentially every 5-10 years, and NBN being on the horizon of a superior suite of networking hardware currently being installed by providers (eg. DWDM, Media Servers, Gateways etc.) makes such a filter very possible.
We anticipate that Triple play will provide user customised individualised media, video and data sessions, and there is hardware already capable of this aplenty, I fail to see how a firewall which is by far much simplier cannot be purchased to meet the requirements of a universal net filter.
Anyways the NBN is a stupid idea simply because international capacity links cant cope with the traffic. The NBN cites 10mbps speeds this is slow ADSL2 already does 20mbps depending on line conditions not distance. The NBN is not superior it is silly because the international links don't have the capacity to handle it. Also basically everything you are saying is smoke and mirrors just like another fucking politician expletive offend you? Great i'm glad it did. Theres a difference between authoritive and authority. You clearly don't understand at all. Using the internet and economy of a way of justifying net censorship when clearly it has nothing to do with that. Your mud doesn't clog my filters. I get sick of liers like you who do not know and spout some ideology. Quote some stuff from various texts but have no real thoughts of their own in effect you are either just a puppet or in bed with someone else unknowingly or willingly. Your text wreaks of full-steam ahead continue bullshit even though its completely wrong.
This is part of a message sent by Sgt. Robyn Maceachern, youth issues co-ordinator for the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), during a seminar at Ontario Association of Police Services Boards Zone 1 semi-annual meeting held towards the end of January, 2009.
“This past May, all of the names of registered sex offenders in the U.S. were run against the 150 million profiles on “MySpace”—and 7,000 registered sex offenders were confirmed and removed from that community, noted Sgt. Maceachern, who works hand-in-hand with the OPP’s electronic crime lab (or as she called them, “the CSI of computers)” and the OPP’s child sexual exploitation unit.
“Those were only the ones who used their real names, those were only the ones convicted of a sexual offence,” she stressed.
“It is a playground online,” she warned. “I don’t need to show you that within two seconds, if I go online as a young 13-year-old girl, there would be a predator asking me to do things on a webcam.” ”
http://fftimes.com/node/219231