Telstra out of Conroy's filtering trial

Telstra has decided not to participate in the government's controversial ISP filtering trial, for which expressions of interest were due today.

(Credit: ZDNet.com.au)

The company said its decision had been reached "primarily due to customer management issues" and stressed that Telstra would keep working with the government on filtering outside of the trial, including evaluating technology to block blacklists, since it had "no fundamental difficulties with a legislated regime for blocking a defined ACMA blacklist of illegal sites".

The six-week trial, which was scheduled to start 24 December, involves either just blocking access to websites on the Australian Communications and Media Authority's black list or additionally filtering non web-based applications such as peer-to-peer networks.

There have been concerns about the costs involved and the accuracy of filtering technology with many other service providers opting out of the trial. ZDNet.com.au rang around to see who had put in an expression of interest to be part of the trial and who had not.

Company Put in EOI? Why/Why not? Other comments on filtering
Telstra No Customer management issues ISPs should not be responsible for setting the rules on content. "Internet service providers should not serve as de facto sheriff, judge and hangman; they should instead implement policies agreed by elected governments to be in the public interest", Telstra media head Justin Milne said in an editorial sent to the Age.
Optus Yes, only the ACMA blacklist "To accurately gauge the impact that this type of filtering would have on its network," a spokesperson for the carrier said. The trial would be limited to a specific geographic area, with customers given the option to opt out of the trial.
iiNet Yes "To make sure the public, media and political players are well informed and realise that it is bad policy," the ISP's website said. "We hope that the outcome of this trial will be the final nail in the coffin of this misguided approach, which seems to re-surface with every new minister." iiNet's position, described on the site, was that internet filtering did not work, would impact on networks' performance and that the scope of "unwanted" content would grow over time.
Internode No No reason given Internode MD has previously voiced concerns about the technical problems of internet filtering, such as speed reductions and false positives. "If the stuff goes a bit wrong it will start blocking other content. The trouble is, the internet's not just web browsers. Other applications that are using the internet may get mistaken for things that are pulling that content and might get blocked or messed with in strange ways," he said in an interview with ZDNet.com.au
3 Unknown N/A N/A
AAPT No No reason given N/A
Adam Internet No Too much on CEO Scott Hicks said that Adam Internet would send a discussion paper to the government on what it thinks should happen — that is that the filtering not go ahead in its current form.
Eftel No "We will wait to see the result of the trials and the impact these may have," a spokesperson said. N/A
Exetel Unknown N/A "If someone said there's a blacklist of known child porn sites, then we'd do it," Exetel CEO John Linton said two months ago.
iPrimus Yes "It's easy for us to do it," iPrimus CEO Ravi Bhatia said. The timing of the trial was "doable" according to Bhartia.
Netspace No "The filtering EOI as we received it was severely lacking in detail and the time frames were too unrealistic for us to participate," Netscape regulatory and carrier affairs manager Matthew Phillips said. Netscape will be carrying out research to find out what its customers want in terms of filtering, Phillips said.
People Telecom No "We are not convinced that content filtering makes practical sense and we are concerned at the potential risk to service quality," the company posted in a forum. "We note also that there is a range of usable desktop-based content management solutions available today to most internet users," the forum continued.
Soul/TPG Unknown N/A N/A
Unwired Yes, but with provisos Unwired appreciates the government's objectives. The application's provisos would mean Unwired would be unlikely to be taken as a trial ISP, an Unwired spokesperson said.
Vodafone No "We're just seeing how the trial unfolds," a spokesperson for the company said. N/A
Westnet No "We're just going to lean on the results of iiNet," a spokesperson for the company said. N/A
Advertisement

Print feature brought to you by Adobe

Talkback 13 comments

    Nice one Telstra Patrick McCormack -- 08/12/08

    Good to see Telstra making a smart decision, considering that this steaming pile of cess this filtering scheme is turning out to be will be short-lived.

    Personally I'm relieved to know that the $70 per month my family is spending on BigPond isn't going to be wasted on it.

    Goebbels is gone. Sydney Lawrence -- 09/12/08

    People don't condone child porn but they don't want censorship of the Net either. Time for Senator Conroy to reconsider.

    What Child Porn? Thomas -- 09/12/08 (in reply to #320118350)

    This is what I do not get..I have never, not once seen child porn on the Internet.

    The argument seems to be that Child porn is everywhere, and you are a pedophile if you do not agree to censorship on the Internet.

    It looks like most ISP's won't be wasting resources on this incredibly ridiculous scheme - but what gets me is...how can Conroy, with all the technical and social opposition still roll ahead with this? And at what cost to me\you the taxpayer? For little or no result?

    Political Agendas Anonymous -- 09/12/08 (in reply to #320118353)

    "how can Conroy, with all the technical and social opposition still roll ahead with this?"
    Thomas -- 09/12/08

    Political stubbornness. He (and his govt) has said he's committed to some sort of plan, and now he needs to do something. If everything keeps going to way it is, they are likely to withdraw the current plan, but watch how they will try to backpedal and implement various other schemes and ideas.

    Long story short - the govt. needs to be seen as "doing something" about child pornography, and this to them just seems like th ebest band-aid solution.

    Why not attack the problem at its source? Anonymous -- 09/12/08

    Where in the world is child abuse & pornography NOT illegal? Every IP & every computer on the internet is trace-able, why instead of blocking it, don't they hunt down the people responsible & hold them accountable for their actions?

    I've been on the internet for over a decade & am always browsing all kinds of sites & have NEVER come across child abuse/porn, not even a wisp of it.

    No child porn Dean -- 09/12/08 (in reply to #320118354)

    Normal people don't find child pornography on the internet because the REAL uses of it know that what they do is illegal, and they know how to hide. That's why no pesky "filter" is going to stop them.

    The only way to stop them is through good old fashion police-work.

    It's the politician's fallacy, though, and it goes like this: "We MUST do SOMETHING about child pornography. This is something, therefore we must do it." Whether or not "this" actually does any good doesn't matter. They just have to been seen to be doing SOMETHING.

    The heading should be, all bar a few out of trial Anonymous -- 10/12/08

    Why is it that we have 9 no's, 3 unknown, 2 limited yeses and only 2 unconditional yeses you single out Telstra?

    Tall Poppy?
    Typical anti-Telstra reporting by Suzanne?
    Direction be the leaders on ZDNet to attack Telstra at every opportunity?
    Truth will not get enough readers?
    or could it be that ZDNet and Suzanne simply have no idea when it comes to quality journalism.

    "Anti-telstra"? Dean -- 10/12/08 (in reply to #320118484)

    I don't see how this article is anti-telstra, unless you're assuming that censorship would have been a good thing?

    Telstra are simply the largest ISP.

    The answer's obvious Patrick McCormack -- 11/12/08 (in reply to #320118484)

    Telstra is the biggest service provider in the country, if they reject the internet filtering plan then a great deal of Aussies won't be affected by it.

    Don't know about you but it seemed obvious to me.

    just say no Anonymous -- 26/01/09

    ill have no Problem joining any isp who rejected the filter there a two i wont be recomending.

    That 2 should be 1 Anonymous -- 30/01/09 (in reply to #320121660)

    note that iinet are only saying Yes to prove it doesn't work.
    iinet have been one the most vocal about how bad this will be.

    Vote with your Foot... No Labour Anonymous -- 12/02/09

    Not voting again for Labour, All I wanted was a fast internet connection and all I will get for voting for these bunch of idiots is a big brother watching my connection. Put the money you would have spent on this foolish endeavour into additional police that can monitor illegal activity. All this does is give a false sense of security as the dogey people of the world will be the ones that find a way to circumvent this. I will vote for anyone that gets rid of this filter.

    The illiterate. Anonymous -- 23/02/09

    The reason this'll have backing is due to the technologically illiterate (Conroy, and the rest of the Government included) public that thinks that the filter will stopp it all and everyone one will be safe. And yet they'll be the ones qq-ing when their speeds slow.

Add your opinion

Back to top

Featured