ISP Q&A: Adam Internet
- 05 September, 2009 11:00
- Comments 25
The ISP Q&A Series is a look at the opportunities Australian ISPs have for resellers. It also profiles their views on some of the more contentious issues affecting the industry. In the sixth part of this ARN series, Adam Internet managing director, Scott Hicks, talks about his predictions for the broadband market, his views on Internet filtering and the National Broadband Network (NBN).
You can also view the responses from:
1. What is your company's background?
Delivering premier Internet and communication services, Adam Internet is one of South Australia’s first commercial ISPs. Started by chairman, Greg Hicks, over 20 years ago Adam remains privately owned and locally operated, keeping South Australians at the forefront of Internet connectivity. Adam Internet has achieved year-on-year growth by providing the best solutions at the best price for our residential, government and business customers.
Adam Internet’s number one focus as we move into the future continues to be our customers. We remain at the leading edge of business and technology by forging new partnerships and investing in our own dedicated networks.
2. Please explain the opportunities you have for resellers
Adam Internet has a wholesale offer to other ISPs in the market. From simple datacentre space to the full suite of products Adam currently has arrangements with 16 ISPs nationally. We have also identified resellers as a great opportunity for growth in the market and are about to relaunch a fantastic new Reseller program in South Australia.
3. What additional opportunities do you see for resellers who want to use your products?
Adam Internet has a broad range of products to suit a wide variety of customers. Resellers should use the products offered by Adam Internet to further boost the solution offered to the customer. Our products are reliable and competitively priced which would drive more foot traffic to their locations. AdamRewards is also another advantage the reseller can use to encourage referrals and repeat business. Another direct benefit to the reseller is the new structure of trailing commissions, which will be included as part of the re-launch.
4. What are some of the challenges they should be aware of?
The challenge that resellers face is the credibility and reliability of the products they sell. Adam prides itself on delivering value for money solutions on reliable network. The positive reputation of our products means resellers can rest assured that after the customer sales process is complete, Adam Internet can support them with their local customer service team and assistance for any future issues that may arise.
5. What is your prediction for the ISP market in the next 12 months – do you forecast any big changes?
With the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) currently stating a 63 per cent rate of saturation, I believe we can expect continued growth in the internet market. The delay of the NBN will also lead to some changes in the market. With the proposed national solution not being delivered for at least seven years, we will see new products and technology such as WiMax being rolled out to fill the gap. There will also be some significant changes from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) around customer contracts and terms of agreements to ensure the customer is adequately protected.
6. What is your stance on ISP content filtering?
It should definitely not occur. ISP content filtering has been thrown out there as a band-aid to an ongoing problem. It is the responsibility of the parents or caregiver to monitor what content is being accessed via the Internet in their home. If you compare the Internet to print or television media, there is a huge amount of content which is deemed inappropriate but the onus of filtering ultimately falls on the caregiver. ISPs simply provide a method of communication, it is not up to us to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate for our customer to view.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Smart Cloud Provisioning: Low Cost and highly Scalable Entry Point into Cloud Computing
- McAfee Whitepaper: Building the Business Case for Privacy
- Smart Cloud: Move Beyond monitoring to Holistic Management of Application Performance
- Choice and Control: Considerations for Developing Enterprise Cloud Strategies
- New Gateway Anti-Malware Technology Sets the Bar for Web Threat Protection (Sponsored by McAfee)
- CITRIX SYNERGY ’13: Look beyond Cloud infrastructure, says Liang
- CITRIX SYNERGY ’13: Christiancen highlights the need for collaboration
- CITRIX SYNERGY ’13: Devices will change how people work, says Duursma
- Smartphone chips could replace server processors in HPC, researchers say
- iPhone 6 rumour rollup for the week ending May 24
-
Attack on Telenor was part of large cyberespionage operation with Indian origins: report
-
Box buys iOS app to improve its own
-
Growing mobile malware threat swirls (mostly) around Android
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Coke gives peace a chance ( +16 photos)
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Regoers
1
What is your stance on ISP content filtering?
Scott Hicks bases him comment here on a clear inaccuracy... Whoever said that the ISP "makes the decision" on what is appropriate? That would be the same as claiming the ISP decides where the users surf to, which is ridiculous.
ACMA and the censorship board make the decisions about what goes on the blacklist, not the ISP.
As Scott claims:
"ISPs simply provide a method of communication"
The "caregiver", as Scott states, is rsponsible. And the "caregiver" for public standards and communications is not the ISP or the parent or whoever, it is the government, as they carry the legal responsibility.
Like it or not. That is the Australian law.
I would hope that Scott does not think that he has that power to decide for his users or would have that decision, no ISP should ever think that...
Rant, Rot & Ruin
2
The government is not a caregiver: it is a servant. And if that servant doesn't pick up its game, it'll get the boot.
Regoers
3
Re: The government is not a
The government is a caregiver, it is a fundamental duty and component of government. It is proscribed and delivered in many facets and forms and is interwoven with all levels of government, be it local,state or federal.
That does not change because you do not like it Rant, Rot & Ruin...
Caregiving is part of the "service" that this "servant" is to deliver.
And I seriously doubt that this government is about to get the boot in the foreseeable future, like them or not. That would be naive to believe...
There is loads that they do that I do not like either, but Rudd is still far too popular and the Libs are such a rabble at this time that the filtering issue is almost inconsequential for most Australians...
JayJay
4
Insurgent nannyism
The government has no more right to censor any communications than it has to decide what I have for breakfast. Plain and simple. Time to rid Australia of its nanny-state mentality - alcopops, grocery watch, petrol watch, binge drinking watch, aboriginal watch, internet watch. Personal responsibility is not the prerogative of the state. We don't need saving from ourselves!
Anonymous
5
I think phone calls and letters should be filtered too.
I'm sure the technology exists to be able to filter all telephone calls. We could then prevent people using obscenities between each other, such as "damn" and "hell". We could also stop people discussing their bathing suits, which outrageously show people's knees and ankles.
Letters should be filtered to. Disgusting love letters could be destroyed, in actual fact, any letter that has any emotion in it, like "yours sincerely", "yours faithfully", and starting with "dear" could be obliterated. People need to be protected from these things.
I seem to remember them talking about doing this sort of thing in 1984.
Regoers
6
Re: I think phone calls and letters should be filtered too.
Looks like you have lost the plot mate.
People did talk about it in 1984, and then nothing like it happened in the real world in 1984, but I think you conveniently missed that part of the story...
Regoers
7
Re: Insurgent nannyism
JayJay, people putting stuff up on webpages or download sites and someone else downloading and/or looking at that is not communications. You might want to get a grip on that concept first of all.
When the individual or group abrogate their personal responsibility then the state is duty bound by law and constitution to take action when this allows illegal acts to occur.
That has nothing to do with nannyism, it is a mechanism to curb anarchic and unlawful tendencies.
JayJay
8
Nonsense, Regoers
People only download what they seek and find. There is no broadcasting involved.
Just like when you make a phone call you don't have big-brother government monitoring what you say and who you say it to, and deciding exactly whether what you say is allowable. Unless you live in China, Iran, or similar.
We don't want Australia (already a country with 10 times the telephone calls monitoring rate than the USA) to progress from a nanny state to a despotic control state.
Once a secret mechanism is established to control our internet can we trust future governments not to (secretly) abuse it? If the state is permitted to engage in secret control of our communications how will we learn when they abuse it?
Why the US government currently funding organizations to stop governments like Australia from censoring their citizens? And why has Australia chosen to become such a pariah state?
The Rudd government will use any excuse to get their fingers into the internet-control pie. There simply isn't any significant internet problem to be addresses.
Even the federal police and asio oppose this plan. For good reason ... they don't want to have crooks encrypting everything over vpns.
JayJay
9
Regoers, webpages are not broadcasts ... find find and choose what to view. You should take you own advice and get a grip on how the internet actually works.
About 99% of the material on the acma secret list is not illegal.
This is simple an exercise by the government to get their finger in the internet-control pie. Governments are lamenting the loss of their cosy relationship with powerful media barons which allowed them to effectively control what the public was fed. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Rudd and his religious fanatics would have us believe.
Regoers
10
Re: Regoers, webpages are not
JayJay, publishing is publishing is publishing.... I cannot recall or read me referring to broadcasts. Have a read again.
Whether you like it or not, it is publishing, and publishing falls under government jurisdiction... That is also how the internet works, they publish when they put it somewhere accessible on the internet and people can then access and read it. Not a bad grip at all?
Ahh, now we come to the agenda.... The government and media barons controlling what the public gets to read and see... Yes, so this apparently 0.00000001% of webpages that are going to be blacklisted is a return to the government controlling what we all get to see.
Sounds realistic to me, now that the media barons have cut back putting "refused classification" content into their newspapers and the New Idea on a regular basis...
And as for the "about 99%" of the content that was listed on the ACMA blacklist not being illegal, well also comes across as somewhat unrealistic as well, as even many folks in the Blogosphere and Whirlpool put the "illegal" content at a far higher number, and the new structure will see the classification board ratifying what goes on the blacklist, thus only "refused classification, making it illegal...
Now the line on "Rudd and the religious fanatics" is also a good one. The ISP filtering policy was originally put in place by Kim Beazley back in 2006. There are no indications, evidence, allegations or proof of any format that suggests or confirms that Kim Beazley was or acted under the influence of any religious organisation, much less "religious fanatics".
The same applies to Kevin Rudd, unless of course you equate someone simply being a Christian by default as being a "fanatic"? That would illuminate the discussion and your base position JayJay...
Anonymous
11
Regoers
I've not seen anyone on Whirlpool able to state more than 1% of the leaked ACMA list contained any genuine illegal content, and I'd be surprised if it really contained even that much. "Refused Classification" is not illegal to own, or to view in the privacy of one's home, unless you're unfortunate enough to live in WA or NT. If I live in QLD, why should I be prevented from viewing material that is legal to own in my state, just because it's illegal in a different state? Isn't that a restriction of trade?
And what's this you're saying about a "new structure" involving the Classification Board? Have you seen some policy document that the voting public have not yet been made privy to? Or are you relying on the back-of-the-napkin spin spewed forth by Stephen "If you're opposed to censorship you're a paedophile" Conroy on Insight back in March? There's a reliable source for you...
Regoers
12
Re: Regoers
Look harder, go on, make a real effort...
Regoers
13
Re: (again...) Regoers
Look I am sorry, but I searched for ages on the Net, and could not find this genuine quote from Conroy:
"If you're opposed to censorship you're a paedophile"
You didn't make it up by any chance did you? Falsify his words by any chance?
I suggest you take more than 22 seconds and make at least an effort to search, and you will find statements from the gov that the CB will be the oversight on the ACMA blacklist in the future. You are privvy to that info Anon,it is public.
RC is RC is RC... That makes it illegal. Grate you teeth, get upset, but no restriction of trade. (real goofy suggestion, lol.) That is "akin" to suggesting that stopping someone from selling cocaine is a restriction of trade... lol.
It is senseless trying to compare and tie in the previous inconsistent and apparently badly managed ACMA blacklist processes with what is announced for the future, it is futile.
Yesterday is yesterday, tomorrow will see some new rules. Whether we like it or not.
Anonymous
14
Refused Classification is NOT illegal to own or to view privately in my state. NOT ILLEGAL. Grate your teeth, rend your garments, it is still NOT ILLEGAL.
Why are you trying so hard to conflate the two? What's in it for you? And where are the policy documents that state that the government will introduce new legislation to have the Classification Board manage an Internet blacklist? On the back of a napkin?
Regoers
15
Re: Refused Classification is NOT
It's going to be, if you try and access it on the Net or try and distribute it...
No conflation at all, just what the gov has planned and announced. You keep conflating the past with the future...
Wait, watch and see...
Anonymous
16
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason why a little friendly spanking between consenting adults on video should be made illegal regardless of medium, and I certainly don't have any desire to "wait watch and see" that happen.
Regoers
17
Re: Well, I'm sorry, but I don't
Agreed, and I do not know of any plans or evidence that friendly little spanking between consenting adults on video would be made illegal, zero indication at all. Available all over the place today and will continue I am sure.
Underage kids and actors looking like or represented as underage kids involved in the same, or other sexual activity? Well I figure the gov has decided that this should be made illegal regardless of medium, and thus illegal to publish in Oz.
That includes the internet. If though stopping the publishing is not possible, then there is no other option but to restrict the access...
If an industry is not self-regulating, then gov regulation invariably steps in. And if you think I like that option then you have totally missed the point.
But I will be stuck with it like you will, because since about 1 year after the day the internet was born, people have done precious litle to stop others selling sex on it, and now the internet is used by so many, it needs to be governed. That is your causation, go figure...
Anonymous
18
Spanking is a fetish. Fetish material is Refused Classification.
So is it illegal or not? Sorry, WILL IT BE illegal or not? Since you're the expert, and all...
Regoers
19
Re: Spanking is a fetish. Fetish
Well I am sorry Anonymous, however you will need to inform yourself a whole lot more on the actual state of the current and planned regulations, if you wish to understand this subject better. Your statement and question seems woefully uninformed...
You will have to provide me and the other readers with any genuine evidence that you have that all spanking is defined as "fetish" content, and that all fetish related content will be RC...
I have yet to see that announced anywhere by authorities or the gov. It has been suggested by some folks in various blog and forum sites, but that was pure speculation.
Anonymous
20
Re: evidence of spanking RC
"You will have to provide me and the other readers with any genuine evidence that you have that all spanking is defined as "fetish" content, and that all fetish related content will be RC..."
According to page 12 of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games [1], "Fetishes such as ... spanking ... are not permitted [within the X18+ category]."
According to page 13 of the same document, "Films that exceed the R 18+ and X 18+ classification categories will be Refused Classification."
[1] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200508205?OpenDocument
Anonymous
21
Quote:
The "caregiver", as
Quote:
The "caregiver", as Scott states, is rsponsible. And the "caregiver" for public standards and communications is not the ISP or the parent or whoever, it is the government, as they carry the legal responsibility.
ENDQUOTE
Governments should not be allowed to censor the internet. Censorship is just another step towards dictatorship.
The claim that filtering is needed to stop paedophiles is ridiculous. The governmnet already has the necessary laws to prosecute these people. Go after the real criminals, not law abiding people who just want open access to the internet.
Stop telling me what I can and can't do.
Regoers
22
Re: evidence of spanking RC
There you go, well done:
According to page 13 of the same document, "Films that exceed the R 18+ and X 18+ classification categories will be Refused Classification."
So the specific films, clips, content etc, irrespective of the subject, will be reviewed by the classification board and they will decide to either allow or RC...
They have powers of discretion to decide whether a spanking scene is R 18+ or X 18+ classification level, and have allowed many films and content where spanking scenes are included, but not deemed to be not exceeding R 18+ and X 18+ classification level.
Even for them, the world is not black and white.
Regoers
23
Re: Quote: The "caregiver", as
I am not telling you at all what you can and cannot do...
The public caregiver is the government, whether we like it or not, that is their task...
Not the private caregiver, but the public caregiver. It is not the ISP that would make any "decisions" on what you see or not, as the domain for regulation on public communications mediums is the government or governments.
I agree that anyone claiming that ISP filtering will stop paedophiles is gravely in error, however I have yet to see that claim from anyone of authority involved in this national discussion. All I have seen are various claims that other people are saying that, but no credible evidence that it has actually been said by anyone in government.
Australia, I am led to believe, has had various forms of censorship for quite a while, but I am yet to detect any surging Aussie dictatorships?
Anonymous
24
Apparently they have powers way beyond that, youre talking about the same Classification Board that recently rated a film based on a scene that wasnt even in it!!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/stoner-comedy-has-censor-seeing-double/2009/09/01/1251570705193.html
You actually trust these clowns to decide what you can and cannot view online?? Better stop drinking that koolaid, you dunno whats in it.
reassyexpashy
25
felayDetuallY
afforbconia
<a href="http://avssedvvvssk.com">awed</a>
gloseBogJes
http://avkisjk.com - rw5f