Bodzilla
November 27th, 2008, 01:45 AM
Too Bad everyone's trying to screw us over it.
News on Telstras Bid for the Australian network upgrade.
http://cyberslam.com.au/img/game/October-News/fibre_Optic1.jpg (http://cyberslam.com.au/shot.php?i=%2Fimg%2Fgame%2FOctober-News%2Ffibre_Optic1_lrg.jpg&r=/news.php?id=272)Yesterday was the deadline for proposals to be submitted to the Federal Government for companies and consortiums to bid for the rights to build the National Broadband Network (NBN). Telstra, Terria, Acacia Australia and Axia NetMedia from Canada submitted proposals to the Government.
Despite the introduction of Acacia and Axia, the main bids are really Terria, the consortium backed by major ISP Internode and Optus, and Telstra. They're the two with the best chance of winning the bid, but Telstra have hamstrung themselves by not submitting a full proposal.
In addition, Telstra's proposal ignored the terms of the NBN and simply offered to expand it's own network to 80 to 90 per cent of Australia. Citing the financial crisis, a falling dollar and the slowing economy, Telstra's offer also failed to commit building the Government's chosen technology of fibre to the node for the entire network.
If that wasn't enough, the entry level broadband on Telstra's NBN will be worse value than what you can get - even from Telstra today.
Telstra's cheapest NBN offering would give consumers a 200MB download cap with speeds up to 1Mbps for $40 a month. Telstra Bigpond's current ADSL offers 1.5Mbps with a 400MB quota for the same amount.
In comparison, Terria's entry level broadband would offer a 2GB download cap with speeds up to 24Mbps for $40 a month.
Predictably Telstra's offer has been met with derision by industry anaylsts.
"Telstra has once again proven they are all bluff, bully and bluster. But the joke of their proposal is that when it came to the crunch they would only put in this arrogant non-conforming bid," said Maha Krishnapillai, spokesperson for Optus.
Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said Telstra's pricing was "totally unacceptable".
"Nobody in the world even talks about 1Mbps internet speed let alone the price that Telstra plans on charging for it."
"But this is exactly why Telstra doesn't want structural separation. If it was structurally separated then it would have to offer internet services at utility prices which would of course eat into their profits."
Mr Budde says consumers should expect high-speed broadband from $40 to $50 a month with a minimum speed of 10Mbps and an unlimited download quota. Currently neither tender from Telstra or Optus Networks Investments, who submitted a bid on behalf of Terria due to legal requirements, support unlimited download quotas.
Industry analysts also expect public backlash against Telstra's proposal, which could put political pressure on the Government to reject Telstra's bid.
But rejecting Telstra's bid could induce legal action from the telco giant, anaylsts predicted.
Professor Kerin, professor at Melbourne University Business School, said Telstra could use legal action to delay construction or the roll-out by refusing access to the copper lines, which Telstra owns.
"Telstra is unlikely to win but it's good tactic to stall. Every day they delay is worth a lot of money to them."
Both Terria and Telstra have submitted retail-based bids, while Acacia Australia have proposed building the infrastructure and reselling it to companies, making it cheaper to provide 100 per cent of the population with broadband - although this would not guarantee pricing in regional areas.
More details about the proposals submitted to the Government are expected to be released later today.
http://cyberslam.com.au/news.php?id=272
god fucking dammit.....
And while this is going on theres another 2 things threatening the internet in australia,
Say Hello to the Australian Film and Television industry.
The Australian film and television industry has launched a major legal action against one of Australia's largest internet service providers for allegedly allowing its users to download pirated movies and TV shows.
The action against iiNet was filed in the Federal Court today by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network.
Mark White, iiNet's chief operating officer, said the company did not support piracy in any form but it could not disconnect customers just because the movie industry claimed they engaged in illegal downloading.
Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), said the action followed a five-month investigation by the industry.
"We identified thousands of infringements of copyright by iiNet's customers and we provided iiNet with about 18 separate notices of those infringements and, unfortunately, iiNet did not do anything to address that copyright infringement," she said.
Pecotic said she would not rule out further action against other internet providers. But she was not interested in targeting individual downloaders at this stage.
The companies are seeking a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent networks. They want an order forcing iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network.
"I would expect, yes, we would go on to claim damages," Pecotic said.
White said it was up to law enforcement and the courts to decide whether people were guilty of illegal downloading.
"If these people have done something wrong then the authorities can act on it but really it's inappropriate for us to act on an allegation," he said.
Chris Chard, managing director of Roadshow Entertainment, said that, as broadband speeds and internet penetration increased, more and more people were turning to piracy.
"Village employs over 5000 Australians. We're active in the cinema business, in film distribution, in DVD distribution and we invest in film production, and piracy has the potential to significantly erode all of those businesses," he said.
The action follows months of wrangling between the movie and music industries and ISPs over the lengths to which internet providers need to go to prevent illegal file sharing on their networks. The industry wants ISPs to agree to cut off services for those who repeatedly infringe copyright.
However, internet providers have argued that the courts already provide adequate remedies for copyright holders and they should not be forced to police their users.
"This is a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia," said Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association.
"It will test the effect of the safe harbour provisions that were introduced with the US free trade agreement, which provides immunity for ISPs in certain circumstances such as transmission, hosting, caching and referencing activities."
Coroneos said the IIA board will shortly convene to develop a response on the legal action against iiNet.
But while the movie industry has now stepped up its aggression, the music industry has yet to take legal action against any internet providers over the issue.
"The Australian music industry has consistently maintained that it would prefer to negotiate a code of conduct with ISPs on this issue," said Sabiene Heindl, general manager of the recording industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI).
Michael Speck, who between 2004 and 2006 ran the music industry's landmark case against KaZaA as the head of MIPI, said he believed legal precedents already established and the emergence of filtering technologies meant iiNet would lose the case.
After leading the music industry to victory against KaZaA, Speck joined forces with one of the file sharing program's key proponents, Kevin Bermeister, to invent filtering technology designed to stamp out illegal file sharing.
"Once it becomes apparent to everyone that the ISP's most significant traffic is illicit or that particular customers are significant infringing hubs then there can be no doubt that the ISP has an obligation to act," said Speck.
The case will be back before the court on December 17.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-companies-sue-iinet-for-allowing-piracy/2008/11/20/1226770617457.html
Well you'd think this would just fall right through wouldnt you?
theres no way they could possible be this Stupid.
Then again...
Legal experts worried about the Outcome of the IInet court decision.
Internet users would have their connections terminated summarily on the whim of the film and TV industry should it win its landmark legal battle against iiNet, legal experts have warned.
Seven of the world's biggest film studios and the Seven Network last week filed suit against iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, in the Federal Court.
They claim iiNet authorised copyright infringement by failing to prevent its users from downloading pirated movies and TV shows.
iiNet, and the industry body, the Internet Industry Association, say ISPs should not be required to take action against any customers until they have been found guilty of an offence by the courts.
ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.
Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.
"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first."
Kimberlee Weatherall, associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia and senior law lecturer at the University of Queensland, said that, to find iiNet liable, a court would have to become involved in industry regulation, making ISPs act as "police, judge and executioner".
"It would have to ignore or sideline the thrust of the many legislative moves the Government has made to protect ISPs who are conduits to communication," she wrote in a blog post.
Weatherall believes that, instead of trying to force ISPs to disconnect customers, the film and TV industry should instead target those individuals in court. But the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft has said it is not interested in going after individual downloaders.
The iiNet case is similar to the one the music industry brought against the Kazaa file sharing service in 2002, which ended in 2006 with Kazaa's owners handing over $100 million in damages.
Additionally, in 2005, Stephen Cooper, the owner of MP3s4free.net, and the website's host, E-Talk Communications, were successfully sued by the music industry for infringing copyright by publishing hyperlinks to sites that contained illegal music.
But Weatherall said both cases were different because they showed a clear knowledge and encouragement of copyright infringement, whereas iiNet simply provides the internet connection and is in no way directly involved with illegal downloading.
Further, the Copyright Act and safe harbour provisions introduced with the US free-trade agreement provide some immunity for ISPs when it comes to the actions of their users.
Nic Suzor, an Australian lawyer doing his PhD at the Queensland University of Technology and vice-chairman of EFA, said internet users would face "substantial hardship" if iiNet lost the case.
"ISPs will be terrified of being sued, and will likely disconnect individual users without taking the care to determine the merits of allegations of copyright holders," he said.
"There will be no court processes, so individual users will have no ability to contest the allegations, short of suing their service providers. There will be no court processes, so the media will not fully report on the issues, and a lot of the injustices will go unnoticed."
John Linton, CEO of the small ISP Exetel, said legal action by copyright holders was "inevitable" and the movie industry's strategy was to "take one or more smaller ISPs to court to test the provisions of the current newer clauses in the Copyright Act".
Unlike iiNet, Exetel forwards infringement complaints from the movie industry to its customers. Linton said iiNet brought the legal action on itself by failing to play ball.
Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, said the impending court battle would be "a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html
But theres one more Disgusting and imoral piece to this puzzle,
WONT SOME BODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
Australians may not be able to opt out of the government's Internet filtering initiative like they were originally led to believe. Details have begun to come out about Australia's Cyber-Safety Plan, which aims to block "illegal" content from being accessed within the country, as well as pornographic material inappropriate for children. Right now, the system is in the testing stages, but network engineers are now saying that there's no way to opt out entirely from content filtering.
The Australian government first revealed its filtering initiative (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070814-australia-to-spend-189-million-on-anti-porn-initiative.html) in 2007, which it expected to cost AUS$189 million to implement. That money would go toward imposing filtering requirements on ISPs, who would have to use the Australian Communications and Media Authority's official blacklist, which is in turn based on the country's National Classification Scheme.
Australia moved forward with its plans despite widespread public outcry and began testing the system (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080227-government-reports-say-89-million-porn-filter-wont-work.html) in Tasmania in February of this year. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) said that the filters would be enabled by default and that consumers would have to request unfiltered connectivity if they wished to opt-out of the program.
Well, it turns out now that those promises were only partially true. Internode network engineer Mark Newton told Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1399635276;fp;16;fpid;0) that users are able to opt out of the "additional material" blacklist—which targets content inappropriate for children—but not the main blacklist that filters what the Australian government determines is illegal content.
There are technical issues.
The clean-feed, if attempted, will be a technical disaster. The Internet does not work in a manner that would let a filter be effective, and the World Wide Web contains far more content than could ever be effectively rated by a Government organisation. The host of technical hurdles include:
Like asking Australia Post to filter out objectionable letters, a filter would require ISPs to examine all web traffic, causing enormous expense and technical headaches.
A filter will slow Internet access down by up to 80% according to a Government report.4 (http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html#f4)
Even the most accurate software the Government has tested would incorrectly block 10,000 sites in every million.4 (http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html#f4)
The ACMA would be overwhelmed with the task of maintaining a blacklist. Millions of web sites, with the list changing on a daily basis, would need to be monitored by Australian bureaucrats - an impossible task.
Only illegal material published on web sites could be targeted, completely missing other methods of distribution such as BitTorrent.
Any determined user - including children - could bypass the filter quickly using an anonymizer service, open proxy, or VPN connection.
The clean feed would be less customisable and effective than a PC-based filter. In short, as the best experts in the country unanimously agree, Conroy's plan does not make sense technically.8 (http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html#f8)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html
http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html
80%...... where already 3rd world......
fucks sake.
News on Telstras Bid for the Australian network upgrade.
http://cyberslam.com.au/img/game/October-News/fibre_Optic1.jpg (http://cyberslam.com.au/shot.php?i=%2Fimg%2Fgame%2FOctober-News%2Ffibre_Optic1_lrg.jpg&r=/news.php?id=272)Yesterday was the deadline for proposals to be submitted to the Federal Government for companies and consortiums to bid for the rights to build the National Broadband Network (NBN). Telstra, Terria, Acacia Australia and Axia NetMedia from Canada submitted proposals to the Government.
Despite the introduction of Acacia and Axia, the main bids are really Terria, the consortium backed by major ISP Internode and Optus, and Telstra. They're the two with the best chance of winning the bid, but Telstra have hamstrung themselves by not submitting a full proposal.
In addition, Telstra's proposal ignored the terms of the NBN and simply offered to expand it's own network to 80 to 90 per cent of Australia. Citing the financial crisis, a falling dollar and the slowing economy, Telstra's offer also failed to commit building the Government's chosen technology of fibre to the node for the entire network.
If that wasn't enough, the entry level broadband on Telstra's NBN will be worse value than what you can get - even from Telstra today.
Telstra's cheapest NBN offering would give consumers a 200MB download cap with speeds up to 1Mbps for $40 a month. Telstra Bigpond's current ADSL offers 1.5Mbps with a 400MB quota for the same amount.
In comparison, Terria's entry level broadband would offer a 2GB download cap with speeds up to 24Mbps for $40 a month.
Predictably Telstra's offer has been met with derision by industry anaylsts.
"Telstra has once again proven they are all bluff, bully and bluster. But the joke of their proposal is that when it came to the crunch they would only put in this arrogant non-conforming bid," said Maha Krishnapillai, spokesperson for Optus.
Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said Telstra's pricing was "totally unacceptable".
"Nobody in the world even talks about 1Mbps internet speed let alone the price that Telstra plans on charging for it."
"But this is exactly why Telstra doesn't want structural separation. If it was structurally separated then it would have to offer internet services at utility prices which would of course eat into their profits."
Mr Budde says consumers should expect high-speed broadband from $40 to $50 a month with a minimum speed of 10Mbps and an unlimited download quota. Currently neither tender from Telstra or Optus Networks Investments, who submitted a bid on behalf of Terria due to legal requirements, support unlimited download quotas.
Industry analysts also expect public backlash against Telstra's proposal, which could put political pressure on the Government to reject Telstra's bid.
But rejecting Telstra's bid could induce legal action from the telco giant, anaylsts predicted.
Professor Kerin, professor at Melbourne University Business School, said Telstra could use legal action to delay construction or the roll-out by refusing access to the copper lines, which Telstra owns.
"Telstra is unlikely to win but it's good tactic to stall. Every day they delay is worth a lot of money to them."
Both Terria and Telstra have submitted retail-based bids, while Acacia Australia have proposed building the infrastructure and reselling it to companies, making it cheaper to provide 100 per cent of the population with broadband - although this would not guarantee pricing in regional areas.
More details about the proposals submitted to the Government are expected to be released later today.
http://cyberslam.com.au/news.php?id=272
god fucking dammit.....
And while this is going on theres another 2 things threatening the internet in australia,
Say Hello to the Australian Film and Television industry.
The Australian film and television industry has launched a major legal action against one of Australia's largest internet service providers for allegedly allowing its users to download pirated movies and TV shows.
The action against iiNet was filed in the Federal Court today by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network.
Mark White, iiNet's chief operating officer, said the company did not support piracy in any form but it could not disconnect customers just because the movie industry claimed they engaged in illegal downloading.
Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), said the action followed a five-month investigation by the industry.
"We identified thousands of infringements of copyright by iiNet's customers and we provided iiNet with about 18 separate notices of those infringements and, unfortunately, iiNet did not do anything to address that copyright infringement," she said.
Pecotic said she would not rule out further action against other internet providers. But she was not interested in targeting individual downloaders at this stage.
The companies are seeking a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent networks. They want an order forcing iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network.
"I would expect, yes, we would go on to claim damages," Pecotic said.
White said it was up to law enforcement and the courts to decide whether people were guilty of illegal downloading.
"If these people have done something wrong then the authorities can act on it but really it's inappropriate for us to act on an allegation," he said.
Chris Chard, managing director of Roadshow Entertainment, said that, as broadband speeds and internet penetration increased, more and more people were turning to piracy.
"Village employs over 5000 Australians. We're active in the cinema business, in film distribution, in DVD distribution and we invest in film production, and piracy has the potential to significantly erode all of those businesses," he said.
The action follows months of wrangling between the movie and music industries and ISPs over the lengths to which internet providers need to go to prevent illegal file sharing on their networks. The industry wants ISPs to agree to cut off services for those who repeatedly infringe copyright.
However, internet providers have argued that the courts already provide adequate remedies for copyright holders and they should not be forced to police their users.
"This is a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia," said Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association.
"It will test the effect of the safe harbour provisions that were introduced with the US free trade agreement, which provides immunity for ISPs in certain circumstances such as transmission, hosting, caching and referencing activities."
Coroneos said the IIA board will shortly convene to develop a response on the legal action against iiNet.
But while the movie industry has now stepped up its aggression, the music industry has yet to take legal action against any internet providers over the issue.
"The Australian music industry has consistently maintained that it would prefer to negotiate a code of conduct with ISPs on this issue," said Sabiene Heindl, general manager of the recording industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI).
Michael Speck, who between 2004 and 2006 ran the music industry's landmark case against KaZaA as the head of MIPI, said he believed legal precedents already established and the emergence of filtering technologies meant iiNet would lose the case.
After leading the music industry to victory against KaZaA, Speck joined forces with one of the file sharing program's key proponents, Kevin Bermeister, to invent filtering technology designed to stamp out illegal file sharing.
"Once it becomes apparent to everyone that the ISP's most significant traffic is illicit or that particular customers are significant infringing hubs then there can be no doubt that the ISP has an obligation to act," said Speck.
The case will be back before the court on December 17.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-companies-sue-iinet-for-allowing-piracy/2008/11/20/1226770617457.html
Well you'd think this would just fall right through wouldnt you?
theres no way they could possible be this Stupid.
Then again...
Legal experts worried about the Outcome of the IInet court decision.
Internet users would have their connections terminated summarily on the whim of the film and TV industry should it win its landmark legal battle against iiNet, legal experts have warned.
Seven of the world's biggest film studios and the Seven Network last week filed suit against iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, in the Federal Court.
They claim iiNet authorised copyright infringement by failing to prevent its users from downloading pirated movies and TV shows.
iiNet, and the industry body, the Internet Industry Association, say ISPs should not be required to take action against any customers until they have been found guilty of an offence by the courts.
ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.
Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.
"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first."
Kimberlee Weatherall, associate director of the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia and senior law lecturer at the University of Queensland, said that, to find iiNet liable, a court would have to become involved in industry regulation, making ISPs act as "police, judge and executioner".
"It would have to ignore or sideline the thrust of the many legislative moves the Government has made to protect ISPs who are conduits to communication," she wrote in a blog post.
Weatherall believes that, instead of trying to force ISPs to disconnect customers, the film and TV industry should instead target those individuals in court. But the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft has said it is not interested in going after individual downloaders.
The iiNet case is similar to the one the music industry brought against the Kazaa file sharing service in 2002, which ended in 2006 with Kazaa's owners handing over $100 million in damages.
Additionally, in 2005, Stephen Cooper, the owner of MP3s4free.net, and the website's host, E-Talk Communications, were successfully sued by the music industry for infringing copyright by publishing hyperlinks to sites that contained illegal music.
But Weatherall said both cases were different because they showed a clear knowledge and encouragement of copyright infringement, whereas iiNet simply provides the internet connection and is in no way directly involved with illegal downloading.
Further, the Copyright Act and safe harbour provisions introduced with the US free-trade agreement provide some immunity for ISPs when it comes to the actions of their users.
Nic Suzor, an Australian lawyer doing his PhD at the Queensland University of Technology and vice-chairman of EFA, said internet users would face "substantial hardship" if iiNet lost the case.
"ISPs will be terrified of being sued, and will likely disconnect individual users without taking the care to determine the merits of allegations of copyright holders," he said.
"There will be no court processes, so individual users will have no ability to contest the allegations, short of suing their service providers. There will be no court processes, so the media will not fully report on the issues, and a lot of the injustices will go unnoticed."
John Linton, CEO of the small ISP Exetel, said legal action by copyright holders was "inevitable" and the movie industry's strategy was to "take one or more smaller ISPs to court to test the provisions of the current newer clauses in the Copyright Act".
Unlike iiNet, Exetel forwards infringement complaints from the movie industry to its customers. Linton said iiNet brought the legal action on itself by failing to play ball.
Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, said the impending court battle would be "a very important test case for the internet industry in Australia".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html
But theres one more Disgusting and imoral piece to this puzzle,
WONT SOME BODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
Australians may not be able to opt out of the government's Internet filtering initiative like they were originally led to believe. Details have begun to come out about Australia's Cyber-Safety Plan, which aims to block "illegal" content from being accessed within the country, as well as pornographic material inappropriate for children. Right now, the system is in the testing stages, but network engineers are now saying that there's no way to opt out entirely from content filtering.
The Australian government first revealed its filtering initiative (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070814-australia-to-spend-189-million-on-anti-porn-initiative.html) in 2007, which it expected to cost AUS$189 million to implement. That money would go toward imposing filtering requirements on ISPs, who would have to use the Australian Communications and Media Authority's official blacklist, which is in turn based on the country's National Classification Scheme.
Australia moved forward with its plans despite widespread public outcry and began testing the system (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080227-government-reports-say-89-million-porn-filter-wont-work.html) in Tasmania in February of this year. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) said that the filters would be enabled by default and that consumers would have to request unfiltered connectivity if they wished to opt-out of the program.
Well, it turns out now that those promises were only partially true. Internode network engineer Mark Newton told Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1399635276;fp;16;fpid;0) that users are able to opt out of the "additional material" blacklist—which targets content inappropriate for children—but not the main blacklist that filters what the Australian government determines is illegal content.
There are technical issues.
The clean-feed, if attempted, will be a technical disaster. The Internet does not work in a manner that would let a filter be effective, and the World Wide Web contains far more content than could ever be effectively rated by a Government organisation. The host of technical hurdles include:
Like asking Australia Post to filter out objectionable letters, a filter would require ISPs to examine all web traffic, causing enormous expense and technical headaches.
A filter will slow Internet access down by up to 80% according to a Government report.4 (http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html#f4)
Even the most accurate software the Government has tested would incorrectly block 10,000 sites in every million.4 (http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html#f4)
The ACMA would be overwhelmed with the task of maintaining a blacklist. Millions of web sites, with the list changing on a daily basis, would need to be monitored by Australian bureaucrats - an impossible task.
Only illegal material published on web sites could be targeted, completely missing other methods of distribution such as BitTorrent.
Any determined user - including children - could bypass the filter quickly using an anonymizer service, open proxy, or VPN connection.
The clean feed would be less customisable and effective than a PC-based filter. In short, as the best experts in the country unanimously agree, Conroy's plan does not make sense technically.8 (http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html#f8)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html
http://nocleanfeed.com/learn.html
80%...... where already 3rd world......
fucks sake.