ISPs show support for Internet filter trial
- 24 March, 2009 10:24
- Comments 17
The remaining ISPs participating in the Federal Government’s Internet filtering trial have declared their continuing support for the controversial scheme.
This week iiNet announced it has withdrawn from the Internet filtering trial with managing director, Michael Malone, describing the trial as a waste of taxpayers’ money.
In a statement Malone claimed the reason the ISP was willing to participate in the trial was to demonstrate the policy was fundamentally flawed.
He also cited drawn out negotiations with the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE), changes in policy, mistakes on the leaked internet “blacklist” and corporate social responsibility as factors in iiNet’s withdrawal.
The Internet filter scheme had already suffered a blow last week, with the leak of the supposed ACMA blacklist, the backbone of the internet filter trials, on Wikileaks. A torrent of criticism has been directed at the published list, which contained a handful of legitimate websites such as Betfair.
Participating ISPs, Highway 1, Primus Telecommunications, OMNIConnect and Tech 2U all told ARN they would continue with the Internet filtering trial.
Webshield managing director, Anthony Pillion, said it will still push ahead with the filtering trial and cast doubt on iiNet’s suggestion the DBCDE was inefficient.
“I can’t say that we have had any issues with our discussion with the DBCDE in any way,” he said.
Highway 1 general manager, Nicholas Powers, said iiNet pulling out of the trail has no effect on his company’s stance.
“We are a participant in the filter trials,” he said. “We are just fulfilling our obligations in terms of our contract with the Government.”
The sixth ISP, Netforce, was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- HiveManager Online: Less Dollars, More Sense
- What is Wireless 2.0
- Aberdeen Group: Building Business Resilience Through Active Archive
- Churchtown Primary School UK Primary School Chooses Aerohive's Reliable, Manageable, Scalable and Economical Controller-less Wireless LAN Architecture
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
-
Datacom joins AFP, Microsoft and ninemsn to support ThinkUKnow
-
Lenovo awarded NSW DET netbook contract
-
Telstra-NBN Co wholesale broadband agreement “imminent”
-
Telstra BigPond email with Windows Live capabilities
-
Panasonic ramps up healthcare presence
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Anonymous
Conflict of Interest
I think it's pertinent to note that Anthony Pillion is a member of the Government's working group for internet filtering. I think it is only natural they wouldn't give him any grief. The Government knew iiNet were out to show this policy for what it truly is and made life too hard for them.
Ed
Is ARN aware that Webshield already offer filtering services, and that they're part of the Government's cyber safety group? This is a massive conflict of interest and their involvement in the trial taints it.
Anonymous
Webshield and Anthony Pillion in trail IS a conflict of interest
As mentioned in other comments Anthony and Webshield been involved in this trails is a massive conflict of interest and therefore is comments are worthless...
Anonymous
to treat us as idiots by saying this will in anyway prevent child abuse, is maddenning enough. even if the list isnt real, the fact that they do have a list, and the fact that anyone would even support the idea of censorship is disgusting and unaustralian. shame on all those with anything to do with this attack on our rights to access information.
Nevyn
Webshiel
The Webshield business model is based on providing a filtered internet feed, if this was what the Australian public wanted, Webshield would be the largest ISP in the country, rather than an insignificant niche service.
Any comments by Mr Pillion must be viewed in theis light, the indroduction of mandatory ISP filtering in Australia directly benefits his bottom line, thus showing a clear conflict of interests in Webshields involvement in the farce of a trial and the farce of the Cyber Safety group.
Anonymous
"Clean Feed" trial
I find it interesting that none of the large ISPs are taking part in this trial. Is that because they lack faith in the benefits of filtering, or the trial itself?
Also, do not forget that the proposed "clean feed" will be compulsory according to Sen. Conroy, whereas this trial is opt in. How well the trial works is completely irrelevant to how the eventual system will work.
Anonymous
iiNet
To be honest, iiNet just got my business for their fine efforts in shaming the government over this issue !
Ben
Who are they?
Highway 1, Primus Telecommunications, OMNIConnect and Tech 2U, Webshield... who are they? Oh thats right, no one knows because they are small irrelevant players in the industry and do not represent the Australian public at large.
I guess getting your 'support' behind this stupid policy will get your name in the media which is all these ISP's hope to acheive.
william_nguyen@idg.com.au
Of course Webshield's MD hasnt had any issues with the DBCDE.
They both have common interests which only serve for a minor part of the community.
david smith
Australians wakeup
We have all voted for a Crony Labour government stimulus money going to pets With a depression looming what is the point of a carbon tax $3.1 billion water buy-back bought farms with no water and now Labor's Internet censorship plans worse than China Iran and Burma.
Mat
Webshield
As stated Webshield provide a filtered net connection already and are working with the Government Workgroup on Censorship/Filtering. What isn't stated is that Webshield is also a reseller of Censorware/Filterware and wishes to make sales to all other ISPs.
Of course he thinks it's all rosy he has money to be made. There is severe conflict of interest and Mr Conroy should stop the participation of this ISP and Anthony Pillion as anything but a vendor with a product to sell.
tom
boycotting
I will make sure to boycott the above mentioned isps supporting the filtering scheme ie Highway 1, Primus Telecommunications, OMNIConnect and Tech 2U. I will never use their services ever again as they are supporting this disgusting idea.
smartpatrol
Internet filtering
I dont care if they have an internet filter as long as we can choose to turn it on and off. I doont have kids in my house Im the only one who uses this computer but I saw an example the other day where a mans young daughter made a typing error and left the Y of youtube. Type it and see what you get LOL
trevor_clarke@idg.com.au
anyone care to continue this conversation in the forums?
http://www.arnnet.com.au/forum/277372/internet_filtering_and_its_effect_business
RaTTyRaTT
Lawsuit against ACMA = in high court?
All,
As a reseller/VAR who sells security/web filtering business, I am looking at what options are available if this goes ahead to sue for 'loss of income' due to the lack of requirement to purchase web-content filtering products. We do a lot of this, for SMB, mid-market, educational and some government. This is going to remove much of the pretext to sell this stuff, which I believe is going to hurt my bottom line a lot. So anyone else interested in participating if it goes ahead and we become like china?
Sam
iinet and the ACMA filtering trial
Forget the high moral ground espoused by iinet and its MD. All they are concerned about is possible fall in revenue if the trial is successful and are creating a fog to successful use the confusion around the issue for marketing their own brand. It is so hypocritical on the part of iinet.
Anonymous
Internet Filtering
Just another piece of legislation that will need to be enforced. My qestions are simple
- Who will oversea the "chief lister" of all sites in the list?
- What will stop this person from taking bribes from companies to ensure there competitors are listed?
- If we dont sell our internet service to children and mark it as unsuitable for children, and is a Adults service only (of course in a brown paper bag wrapper) why should we have to filter it?
If someone wants pornongraphy for there own sexual pleasure, why not allow the scheme to be opt in / opt out. I am sure that less then 10% will opt in or even less.
How about the smaller isp's who need to fund upgrades to do this, and how about there carbon footprint... Well we will need more power to process the lists and enforce it, so this must increase our greenhouse emmissions.
Finally, after speaking to the relevant governament departments we where denied access to the previous filtering for clients on dialup who did want it, to be told they need to contact us and download it....
Samantha
System Administrator
Regional Internet Connect
Post new comment