What does the digital economy encompass? What does it mean for Australians?

I believe that the Australian Government needs to address region coding of digital material. Seperating the world into 5 or 6 DVD regions (as well as a similar system for software) is an impediment to world free trade, not to mention that it goes against the intent (common trading grounds). I am a regular world traveller and have been frustrated by the excuses large corporations, and the governments that receive their taxes, continue to parade as a cover for what can be considered a global duo-opoly. I regularly see ligitament software in Asia for AU$20 that is also sold in AUstralia for AU$90. Shipping costs do not add AU$70 to the final bill nor manufacturing costs as they come out of the same factory. It is simply old fashioned price gouging (like or fuel cartels). Breaking these region coding regulations would increase sales within AUstralia as the prices of goods fall in line with our neighbours and it becomes less benefical to DL the material. Also, a large amount of DLing is conducted for maovies and games not easily accessable in Australia such as Japanes anime or European sci-fi. Reduced costs, perhaps through tarrif reductions,region unlocks and digital distribution (pay for downloads at $5 each?) would enable the Australian economy to supply a demand that is growing (think of the taxes you would get Mr Conroy). The generation of tech -heads is here. They are the middle aged suburban families and their children. We have grown up with this technology (P2P, web, Billboards & Blackhatters) and are not afraid to use it. Make those who hide responsible for looking after them selves not punish the wider community who want to do the right thing but are hamstrung by backward thinking beuracracy. You can make a difference Mr Conroy, please make it count for common sense and pull down the great firewall of Australia and truly build an e-nation to be proud of...make your mark on history

Posted by Cranky / 24 Dec 2008 11:58am / Permalink

This is all bluster. No way are Conroy and the ALP bringing this in. They know they'd be turfed out at the next election if they even try. I'm a lefty and my vote would go straight to the Libs if so.

Posted by Tim / 23 Dec 2008 2:36am / Permalink

'Digital economy' is an awful term that seems to encompass a complete misunderstanding of computation and communications. Like the net filter it bodes poorly for the future. Anyway, without internet speeds and access costs approximating those of the rest of the OECD and others we won't have a 'digital economy'. If we can get that into place then there is little need for the government to do much other than broker large scale programs in traditional areas of government - education, health and so on.

Posted by nanks / 22 Dec 2008 1:12pm / Permalink

First, define broadband, with an effective minimum. Anything below 8Mbs WILL NOT DO AT ALL. Aim for between 20Mbs & 50Mbs within 2 years. Nationwide. NO excuses. No Telstra bull.

Posted by Groucho / 21 Dec 2008 7:44am / Permalink

The 'keeping internet free of child porn' justification behind internet censorship is a red herring. It's all about a meglomanics desire to control all forms of communication and anonymously block any site they want. We can choose to be sheeple and hope for a good shepherd, or fight to defend our freedoms. Unfortunately this means that we'll lay down and get shafted until it becomes unbearable, and then parliament gets blown up. Guy Fawkes anyone?

Posted by Guy Fawkes / 20 Dec 2008 1:43pm / Permalink

Please Mr Conroy, remove YOUR morals (or are they Family First's?) from MY internet. I do not expect you to live by my ethical standards and moral judgements, I would appreciate the same consideration.

Posted by Anthony / 18 Dec 2008 1:52pm / Permalink

How benefit Australians Offer us wider choice and more competitive conditions. Telstra owns the copper so build a parallel 'Fibre to the Home' network. Ensure new (unjointed fibre) can be rolled out on demand from the Node to Home (front gate) by robotic crawlers pulling the optic fibre through adequately dimensoned service channels/ pipes/ ducts/ trenchs/ or whatever you want to call the access infrastructure. PS - copper will be catastrophically uncompetitive soon enough. For remote areas satellites provide immediate coverage.

Posted by Hamlet / 17 Dec 2008 5:42pm / Permalink

I perceive the digital economy to be the social economy. We are seeing a profound shift from capitalism, where companies mediate the relationship between supplier and consumer to social network economies where C2C services are provided. I can find a plumber, a writer and a doctor all on my social networks. I definitely don't need media to advertise to me, and FOAF (friend of a friend) supplies me with any connections that may be missing. Peer to peer changes everything. Open Mesh and Meraki turns EVERYONE into Citizen ISP. Zopa and Prosper tuns EVERYONE into Citizen Banker. Not a single industry will be left unmarked by social network (digital) economies. What We Media did to Heritage Media is only the beginning...

Posted by Laurel Papworth / 15 Dec 2008 5:51pm / Permalink

As an Australian and an internet user, I have serious concerns about your new mandatory "clean feed" filter initiative. Given the importance your Government has attached to modernising Australia's broadband network, pursuing a policy that can only slow down and increase the costs of home internet access seems misguided at best. Australian households are diverse, and most do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all approach will not serve the public well. I don't think it is the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children, and neither do most Australians. Given the amount of Internet content available, the Government will never be able to classify it all and I feel that the time and money could be spent in better ways both to protect children and improve Australia's digital infrastructure. Australian parents need better education about the risks their children face online. Trying to rid the Internet of adult content is futile, and can only distract from that mission. A few points to consider 1. How will this filter serve any purpose for blocking child pornography or other illegal content when surely if any illegal content is found the proper authority's would be notified to have those websites taken down. 2. How will this filter even attempt to prevent online predators from contacting children? Will you be blocking social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook aswell as chat rooms where these predators are known to go to engage children? 3. Implementing this filter will give parents a false sense of security that their children are now safe on the Internet because of the filter. Opening up the gateway to lawsuits when it doesn't properly filter some webpages. 4. It should be up to parents to decide what's best for their children just as they would when they decide what movies and television they watch. It's not the governments role to play "Nanny State". 5. In a supposedly free and democratic society how can you justify blocking or censoring adult content from adults? Also how can you do something as completely undemocratic as block sites you deem as "unwanted material" without giving the public any indication as to what this unwanted material is instead keeping it hidden in a secret blacklist with no publicly available record where you can continue to add anything else to the list you deem unwanted without the public ever knowing what is being blocked? I wonder if negative comments about polices such as this would be classified by you as unwanted material. 6. The filter would incorrectly block 10,000 legitimate sites in every million. 7. When we have a filter like this where countries like Iran have more Internet freedom how can we any longer take the moral high ground and be an example to other nations as what a free and democratic society should be. 8. This filter will slow Internet access down by up to 80% according to a Government report. Our country already has just about the worst Internet speeds in the world, why put another hurdle like this in front of us, which is going to seriously hamper us from ever being able to catch up with the Internet speeds of the modern world. 9. The filter can easily be bypassed making it effectively pointless. 10. Tax money would be much more efficiently and sensibly spent on going after these child abusers. 11. All the experts agree that this filter is stupid, flawed, won't work and will only slow Internet speeds down. 12. The Australian public have shown very little interest in this filter public with far more of the public feedback being against it. So how can you willingly force this upon the Australian people and expect us to pay for it? 13. Given the amount of disapproval this filter has why pursue it when this will almost guarantee your party will be a one term government when the people decide to vote you out at the next election. It seems to me the only reason you could have for pushing this policy is either you are seriously misguided, which I doubt because you have been given plenty of feedback by the public, the experts and the ISPs for why this filter is so impractical and insensible. So that means that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you want this filter in place because of some ulterior agenda it serves. Lastly given all these points that you have not even began to address I find it deeply offensive and juvenile that you'd suggest that everyone against this filter supports child porn.

Posted by Jaimes / 15 Dec 2008 3:42pm / Permalink

There is no distinction between a digital economy and a regular economy, and there certainly should be no intervention by government in either. The internet is a utopia for freedom and peace. It is a form of communication where no theft or violence can be employed, and it is totally safe and there is no need for government to police or regulate communications. If a crime is committed, that is a separate matter for the police. But regulating speech and technology is a misguided attempt at social engineering, tried by failed communist states.

Posted by Jono / 15 Dec 2008 12:01pm / Permalink

* Spam and viruses are a big problem, not easy to address. However, if the investment of cash, time and effort proposed for the censor filter were invested in improving security and safety at the ISP level, we might achieve something very significant.

* Most discussion on NBN has related customer connection speeds, with an implication of sufficient backhaul to service those speeds. What about the actual structure and efficiency of the network and of reseller access? If each ISP must still have all their customer traffic routed through their own tunnel heads, and pay the infrastructure owner for specific capacity on backhaul, then the "national" aspect of the network will be carry a lot of waste. The base network should be able to route efficiently on behalf of any/all providers, making peer traffic far more efficient than currently possible. Note that peer traffic includes VPNs for multi-site businesses, and for teleworkers. In the case of teleworkers, the home-office ISP may not be the employer's ISP. Flexible peer routing also facilitates distributed content caching, so major providers (esp video / IPTV) can increase their capacity with minimal impact on backhaul, by putting a cache in each region. Local resources applicable to a town would be accessible at full speed within that town. Traffic between two nearby towns or suburbs need not be routed via capitol city central exchanges.

* There is no easy answer to fairness. Having Telstra build the NBN will further entrench a monopoly that we already don't know how to handle fairly and legally in a "competitive" market. Going apart from Telstra means a fragmented base network and poor peering between Telstra's networks and customers and the new NBN. However, Telstra's comment that they would compete with any other provider suggests that is the most effective way to solve the "incumbent monopoly" question.

* If the NBN is to maximise efficiency and cost-effectiveness, it must be a monopoly. In that respect it should be government-owned. At the very least, it should be prevented from operating in competition with its own customers (retail ISPs), but even then, without competition, it may lose incentive for furture improvements.

* Could the aims be met with a new kind of USO, that specifies good data rates with future increases? Set a requirement for all new services from 2010, with (say) a 5 year window to upgrade all existing services.

* USO should stipulate that where a provider uses mobile/wireless technologies to deliver a fixed-location service, the client is not penalised financially for this decision. This means wireless can be used where sensible (e.g. avoiding long fibre runs per customer in remote locations, or temporarily until a new node is installed in the area) while mantaining impetus for good infrastructure development. Access costs for fixed installs should be in proportion to speed/performance, not access method.

Thanks for listening. Here's hoping someone is able to digest all the comments and achieve something useful in response.

Posted by swordfishBob / 15 Dec 2008 11:37am / Permalink

It is absurd to think that you or any commity knows whats best for an entire country, everyone has different opinions for things, and yours maybe different, does that mean you are right because you have that power to censor them? It also blows my mind that i could join the army now, be deployed to iraq, and kill an insurgent, yet im not considered adult enough to handle any alcohol, or pornography.

Senator Conroy, i really want to know why you think this is a good idea, in spite of all the reasons why this is impossible and NOT democratic.

What little information we have recieved so far only shows that it will do nothing more than cripple Australias already slow internet (i cant even get ADSL2+).

I have already written letters to my local MP and to the primeminister on this topic but have not recieved any replies, so if you could fill in the blanks and respond it would be much appreciated.

Posted by gijed / 15 Dec 2008 2:07am / Permalink

guys, you titled this blog "What does the digital economy encompass? What does it mean for Australians?"

Well without the functional separation of Telstra, and / or if Telstra get their hands on control of the NBN, there will be no "digital economy" to speak of in this country, because we will all be charged out of existence.

Telstra's track record speaks for itself. Telstra are still ripping off the ignorant by signing them up to ridiculous low cap plans with totally unreasonable excess charges. This is totally beyond what anyone could consider a fair approach. It is insidious and not in keeping with the culture of this country. Their salespeople are still encouraged to lie to consumers re pricing and make promises of non-existent plans to encourage churning back to Telstra.

No-one at Telstra (nor Telstra itself) ever gets in trouble with the relevant Fair Trading, nor the ACCC, nor the telco ombudsman, over these practices and yet any other business doing the same things would be run out of town.

Further, Telstra continue to hamper and outright block access to ISP's trying to roll out competitive services to business and domestic customers across the country.

When telecoms in this country was opened to competition, we saw Optus and others bring the costs to the community down. Unfortunately the profits were still too great and competition beyond signing up numbers has evaporated - that is, competition by way of cheaper pricing.

Telstra are by no means a quality ISP. It was never a core business and their dominance landed in their lap by virtue of being the incumbent monopoly telco (pseudo monopoly perhaps, but none the less, monopoly - or maybe we could just say 500kg gorilla). They only ever do just enough (and often not enough) while still charging excessive rates.

I know there are economies of scale to consider in Australia. But I am sure Telstra could halve both their monthly access fees and their data rates for ADSL, and more so for their mobile data, and still make a healthy profit. I say this because most ISPs admit that they could turn a profit charging half of what they do, if not for Telstra's predatory pricing.

If correct reduction to Telstra pricing truely occurred, I for one would then gladly pay another $5 per month to cover infrastructure to "the bush". Do the sums. I am sure it would more than work out.

I will close with a little anecdote. Back in the 1980's when optical fibre became a reality, Telstra ran their first optical fibre cable between Sydney and Melbourne, at a cost, if memory serves, of $45M. That was a lot of money back then, even for Telstra. The anecdote is that it paid for itself in six months.

I wonder what percentage of their 3G network has already been paid for, given the profits they make from the inflated mobile rates we pay?

Unfortunately Telstra has become an un-Australian company, coincidentally run by un-Australians.

We could, and should, be doing far be better in this country than we are for what is becoming (for some has become) an essential service.

You have received a mandate from the people. Please don't waste it.

Bryan

Posted by BryanL / 14 Dec 2008 10:29pm / Permalink

guys,

you titled this blog "What does the digital economy encompass? What does it mean for Australians?"

Well without the functional separation of Telstra, and / or if Telstra get their hands on control of the NBN, there will be no "digital economy" to speak of in this country, because we will all be charged out of existence.

Telstra's track record speaks for itself. Telstra are still ripping off the ignorant by signing them up to ridiculous low cap plans with totally unreasonable excess charges. This is totally beyond what anyone could consider a fair approach. It is insidious and not in keeping with the culture of this country. Their salespeople are still encouraged to lie to consumers re pricing and make promises of non-existent plans to encourage churning back to Telstra.

No-one at Telstra (nor Telstra itself) ever gets in trouble with the relevant Fair Trading, nor the ACCC, nor the telco ombudsman, over these practices and yet any other business doing the same things would be run out of town.

Further, Telstra continue to hamper and outright block access to ISP's trying to roll out competitive services to business and domestic customers across the country.

When telecoms in this country was opened to competition, we saw Optus and others bring the costs to the community down. Unfortunately the profits were still too great and competition beyond signing up numbers has evaporated - that is, competition by way of cheaper pricing.

Telstra are by no means a quality ISP. It was never a core business and their dominance landed in their lap by virtue of being the incumbent monopoly telco (pseudo monopoly perhaps, but none the less, monopoly - or maybe we could just say 500kg gorilla). They only ever do just enough (and often not enough) while still charging excessive rates.

I know there are economies of scale to consider in Australia. But I am sure Telstra could halve both their monthly access fees and their data rates for ADSL, and more so for their mobile data, and still make a healthy profit. I say this because most ISPs admit that they could turn a profit charging half of what they do, if not for Telstra's predatory pricing.

If correct reduction to Telstra pricing truely occurred, I for one would then gladly pay another $5 per month to cover infrastructure to "the bush". Do the sums. I am sure it would more than work out.

I will close with a little anecdote. Back in the 1980's when optical fibre became a reality, Telstra ran their first optical fibre cable between Sydney and Melbourne, at a cost, if memory serves, of $45M. That was a lot of money back then, even for Telstra. The anecdote is that it paid for itself in six months.

I wonder what percentage of their 3G network has already been paid for, given the profits they make from the inflated mobile rates we pay?

Unfortunately Telstra has become an un-Australian company, coincidentally run by un-Australians.

We could, and should, be doing far be better in this country than we are for what is becoming (for some has become) an essential service.

You have received a mandate from the people. Please don't waste it.

Bryan

Posted by BryanL / 14 Dec 2008 10:27pm / Permalink

The mandatory ISP-level filter is as essential as mandatory treatment of sewage before it is released back into our water supply. Those adults who enjoy a dip in raw sewage can still do it, but children should not be unwittingly exposed to that filth. The government must not give in to urgings from the porn industry - whether purveyors or consumers.

Posted by Family Doctor / 14 Dec 2008 9:45pm / Permalink

Give the whole censorship idea a miss guys. We don't need it, we're adults. If people want their kids to be kept safe, they should try a bit of supervision. I don't see why everyone need suffer to make up for bad parenting.

Ironic how our media and government complained about the Chinese censorship

Posted by Bazza / 14 Dec 2008 8:12pm / Permalink

"NET FILTER IS FAIL"

Are we seirously going to be treated like children for the rest of our lives? This is ridiculous! Its bad enough that in schools we can't even complete our work because when we type anything into google it is deemed "inappropriate" and cannot be viewed. Is this going to start happening at home, to? This kind of censorship should not exist, its up to the indivdual not the goverment! Our parents should control what we do and do not see when we're very young, but once we're teenagers we are responsible enough to control our own internet access, nevermind adults in their 40's and 50's! It is just ridiculous that their internet access would be censored for "inappropriate" and "offensive" material. Who is going to decide on what is considered inappropriate or not? It differs for each individual!

How in the world can you even consider censoring the internet?? I mean do you actually think you can keep up with it? You obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the digital age, as YOUNG PEOPLE we could make better decisions than you. This makes me so furious.

Free speech, free access to information, not censored by the goverment!!!! Don't turn us into China.

I cannot wait for the next election, in which the Rudd goverment will be out.

Posted by Dani / 14 Dec 2008 6:59pm / Permalink

Australia has a strong and creative community of online workers who will be crippled by your threatened internet filtering scheme - I mean really... even telstra doesnt want in! Lolz!

Please listen to the Oz online community - who understand these technologies and the ways that we can make the webz safer for our children. Dont censor us and cripple our ability to work, network, communicate and connect online.

My community of practice in a a virtual world called Second Life say NO! TO Clean Feeds. http://jokaydia.com/2008/12/13/jokaydia-says-no-clean-feed/

Posted by jokay / 13 Dec 2008 3:08pm / Permalink

To Lexe Belle, I should point out that the Internet is not "lawless" as I guess you must see it as your magic bullet filter is not yet in place. I am not sure that law enforcement people world wide dealing with Internet crime would be thrilled with that comment (who I am sure could use some extra staff and finance). If you are caught committing crime on the net, you leave yourself open to being punished by the law as it stands now!! You seem to have absorbed little of what the other contributors have been saying and do a great job of MINIMISING the impact that this filter will actually have. It surprises me that you seem to know more about equipment used by ISP's than the ISP's themselves, when oddly enough, many ISP's and experts have been saying that the filter idea is expensive and unworkable and either will significantly impact Internet speed with a filter of higher accuracy or less speed impact which will mean worse job of filtering, both ARE inaccurate anyway in blocking and letting stuff through, simply one is just more inaccurate than the other, a real positive huh?? You say that there should be some degree of policing, Policing is the investigation and arrest of crime, not imposing morals and values and opinions on the population as a whole, and it seems that the Government are not just interested in illegal content, as stated by Conroy, are they Lexi Belle!? Filter your own Internet, that is your right.... It is my right to say no to this and I am!!

Posted by The Cat / 13 Dec 2008 2:08pm / Permalink

The future of the digital economy in Australia, at present, is reliant on the good will of major search engines - all USA owned.

Google uses their search superiority to direct web traffic to USA websites, particularly commercial websites; and Australia could be doing the same.

Superior search engines influence outcomes/destinations, and there are no laws barring biased search results. To evidence the USA commercial advantage, you only need perform a few Google searches.

Australia could develop/should develop it's own search engine equal to, or better than Google.

A superior Australian search engine could also facilitate 'filtering' of illegal (eg phishing, child pornography) content.

As no other search engines have developed this functionality, this type of search engine could attract international interest (eg parents the world over all have similar concerns).

Posted by Balance / 13 Dec 2008 12:25pm / Permalink

Australia is lagging behind the rest of the global digital economy in several key areas. Firstly, we have the slowest internet access in the (free) world unless we bow to the monopoly of Telstra. Even then, where I live I won't get ADSL2 until Telstra decides that enough of its own customers want it, and then they insist that I be their customer before they 'let' me have it. Unlike when ADSL was first released, there is no register where one might express a desire to be connected to ADSL2. It's all up to Telstra with NOTHING in place to make it fair for ALL Australians, regardless of which telco they choose to do business with. Secondly, Australians - especially at government level - remain woefully ignorant of online security issues. The government itself encourages people to transmit sensitive personal data to government sites without ever monitoring, mentioning or even considering how secure the originating PC might be. Any internet filter is going to compromise what slim security we have now. Already I resort to a live-boot, non-micro$lop product to improve my online banking experience. This filter will break even that. You cannot make a hole in a hose without making it leak. The impact on the economy of the gaming and entertainment industries seems to be largely ignored. I wish to play online games with friends residing in the US and the UK but cannot because my lag times are so terrible. I would have to be the best player in the world just to break even. Do people who invest upwards of $100 on a game deserve to have that same game devalued to $zero because their ISP filters or throttles bandwidth? My ISP throttles P2P traffic during peak hours but will not admit that fully legitimate traffic (eg, World of Warcraft data) is being compromised. Their attitude seems to be 'it's only a game' whereas I view it as a $100+ investment in software and an acceptible form of entertainment to a person who is physically incapable of playing any kind of organised sport. I could discuss how Australians pay up to 80% MORE for games (even online downloads) than their US/UK counterparts but that would be a digression... The music and film industries are being severely affected by our draconian methods of marketing. We really DON'T need to buy videos off the shelf in a plastic box. We can burn DVD's ourselves - we have the tchnology (because thankfully we didn't have to wait for Telstra to provide it). For that matter, many people, myself included, are happy to watch a movie once without having a real, live copy to own. Austalian internet speeds (for the majority of non-Telstra customers) are far too slow to make watching movies online viable. I've been online nearly 12 years and in at least the past 10 of those years I haven't EVER had pornographic returns from an innocent search term. Not ever. 'Protect the kids from harm' is a whitewash. PARENTS are the first line of child protection. I expended the effort to educate and protect my own 4 kids online. Please don't expect me to accept having my internet compromised for the sake of lazy or irresponsible parents. You had them, YOU look after them. I've never asked YOU to take care of mine simply because I couldn't be bothered to do it myself. The suggestion that grown adults who value freedom of expression and decry censorship must be closet peadophiles is most insulting. A person with even a modicum of interest in psychology is going to be tempted to label that kind of behaviour as 'projection'. Projection is where person A expects person B to behave exactly the same way that they (person A) would behave in a given situation. In other words, the REAL 'closet peadophiles' think the rest of us are peadophiles too; worse, they are telling it to the whole world. It's true that its possible to make disgusting blanket assumptions about people you haven't ever met - government does it all the time - and of course, it's your prerogative; but please don't make them public. And PLEASE don't present them as truth. The input box on this form is so small it makes proofreading very difficult. Please could it be made a few lines bigger?

Posted by NullDevice / 13 Dec 2008 9:56am / Permalink

There is no division between the 'digital' economy and whatever the DBDE is calling the other bits of the economy. Anyone using a mobile telephone, watching paytv (and soon any tv), buying or selling (or pirating) books, movies or music, growing and selling food using satellite weather reports, complex distribution, accounting and marketing systems is part of the 'digital' economy. From knowledge workers to garbage collectors, the digital economy is seamlessly integrated with the entire economy. Stop placing artificial silos in place that restrict thinking on the flows and consequences of change. They make government less equipped to address the changes occurring in society. All economic activity comes down to labour, time and resource inputs being applied to create products and services people choose to consume, exchanging their dollars for the ideas and efforts of others. This is the same process whether buying the latest fashions at the shops or a digital outfit for their avatar in an online world. Whether going to the park to play football with mates, or going online to play in a Massive Multiplayer Online Game with their guildies, people are choosing between different ways to spend time. Digital is a different channel not a distinct and separate universe. I typed this comment while laying in bed using my wifi itouch, simultaneously listening to music and twittering with friends to organize arrendence at a No Filter rally -

Posted by CraigT / 13 Dec 2008 8:31am / Permalink

How can our digital economy be under threat from so many internet 'nasty's that we need to spend hundreds of millions to hide, yet the same Govt has come in and cut funding to frontline federal staff combating the same problem? Hiding it away doesnt save one kid, yet thats where all the money is going.

Posted by Dave / 12 Dec 2008 11:45pm / Permalink

I am for net censorship, or rather moderation or filtering. I think censorship is the wrong word. I don't believe that any medium for communication should be anarchistic. Just as we need laws to protect us in existing forms of media, eg. radio, TV, print, we need them for the internet. I can see where Labor is coming from in relation to moderating the internet and the future digital economy. If we are going to depend on the internet that greatly, then yes, there should be some degree of policing, to protect our personal and business interests. Now before everyone jumps up and says that the technology wont work; I would have to disagree. There are various vendors that have carrier grade hardware capable of filtering content up to 10Gbps per unit. In fact such an architecture is widely deployed in any telco's core network architecture as part of their value-add services gateway - its mandatory these days. The transmission capacity is also immense, we are talking Tbits and up. Given that NBN will only be 24Mbps and ADSL2+ technology, there will only be marginal effect on the latency as a result of the net filter. What will be the factor would be the response time for overseas servers we are trying to access. For local traffic, this would hardly be an issue. From a cost/benefit point of view, I think the filter is essential. The point that many of those who are against censorship conveniently ignore is that although the filter cannot block out every bit of illegal or undesirable activity, it will block a very significant amount of it, making it safe to use in the digital economy. It will also not affect internet speed by any signficiant degree. Another point is equating this with some kind of totaliatrian plot by the government to control and inhibit freedom of speech. This is such a load of rubbish. We do have freedom of speech, but it is a right that is enacted within the laws of our society, and the internet should mirror these laws. There should not be a separate law for the internet. To say that censoring the internet is putting a gag of free speech is simply incorrect and are the belief of those who think the internet should be lawless. If that were the case, there would be many victims of this digital frontier, if they so choose to participate in it, and I dont see why the internet should be the domain of tech savvy geeks alone.

Posted by Lexi Belle / 12 Dec 2008 9:26pm / Permalink

In view of the huge response on this blog regarding the net filter, and the fact that blogs are supposed to be interactive, Conroy should at least have the curtesy to post a reply. Well? Let's see you defend your stupid idea in front of all these learned people here eh?

Posted by smokey / 12 Dec 2008 8:25pm / Permalink

Well, if we're going to use the term "Economy", I would have to say our Digital version of an Economy is quite dismal at the moment (at least in my eyes):

• We have a private company with a monopoly on our national infrastructure, who have the interests of their investors at heart, not the country.
• Due to the monopoly, other companies find it hard to compete, as a lot of time there is no effective "economic" method to enter a lot of the market...
• We allow this monopoly to dictate growth and govern our initiative. I will provide Next-G as an example - why is it I can not get Next-G on Optus or Vodafone? Why aren't we using 3G, like the rest of the world?
• We are bluffed into thinking that we need Telstra to build an NBN... Sure, it would help if they came to the party, but judging from their recent NBN Submission, I am doubtful it will ever be in any helpful or of national interest.
• We're bluffed into thinking Telstra are the good guys and Terria are the evils... Yes, Sol Trujillo is as Aussie as Simon Hackett, I am sure.
• We try and apply "safe" and conventional methods to solve our Communication
• We have a government who wants to sensor our Information... This is about as helpful as putting a dam on a river in a drought stricken area, then setting up a blog asking the farmers how they felt about it.

I am by no means an Economist, but my understanding is that in order have a flourishing economy, you need free trade and competition... we have neither, at least in the Communication Infrastructure part of town.

I live in a part of the country that can not get ADSL2 unless you go through Telstra. There is no technical reason, or visible financial reason for Telstra not allowing other companies to rent/lease these ports?

I am not even going to get started with our complete dependence of Microsoft products in the Public sector. Or the issue of software patents and how it affects our software industry.

We seriously make life hard for ourselves when it comes to technology in this country.

Cheers,
Barry

Posted by Barry Robinson / 12 Dec 2008 6:13pm / Permalink

we do not vote for politicians to look after our morals and treat us like school kids,and the monumental cost of implimenting this is disgraceful. conroy you should resign immediatly for the sake of democracy

Posted by john / 12 Dec 2008 3:45pm / Permalink

Regarding the digital economy.

The Government may want to look at the way media is distributed in Australia.

Currently the movie industry is suing iiNet over copyright infringement by it's users.

The big thing in my mind is that the movie and TV industry, (with the exception of the ABC) are NOT moving with the digital age.

Movies and TV should be available online at a reasonable cost.

Why can we only see a new movie at a movie theater? Yes if its a great movie I'll probably go to a theatre to watch for a better experience. However they should be available online!

Why do we have to wait months for a movie to make it to the DVD rental shop? Why do we have to buy the whole movie, pay for the packaging and shipping when many of us would be happy to download it and view that way?

(Better for the environment too).

Please apply some pressure to that industry to "get-with-the-times". Old distribution models, that are half a century old just DO NOT WORK ANYMORE.

This is why movie and TV piracy is so widespread, the industry is not giving consumers what they want.

Posted by Simon Shaw / 12 Dec 2008 3:29pm / Permalink

I'm late to the game on this one, work got in the way!

There are many benefits the Australian people, Australian Industry and the Australian education sector can gain from having a strong digital infrastructure.

My biggest concern relates to the availability of access to broadband internet. A connection that will allow a user to engage with rich multimedia content, for example watching speeches, listening to interviews and reading commentary during the recent US elections requires significant by bandwidth and usage allowance.

Broadband internet prices are still prohibitive for a large proportion of the population. If someone signs up for a $10 a month ADSL plan that comes with 200MB downloads, according to the statisticians they have broadband access, yet with such a small data allowance they are not able to truely engage with the rich content available online. I believe the NBN must address the issue and provide affordable fast broadband access with a usable data allowance to all Australians.

Posted by Mick Leyden / 12 Dec 2008 2:52pm / Permalink

Hey Conroy, pull you're head in mate. Who do you and you're government think you are implementing something with the intention of almost no public discussion on the matter??? Trying to sneak this one through weren't you? You went to the election with filtering, on an opt out basis, and now you're in power you want it to be mandatory! What a nerve. Listen to the people, listen to the polls, no one wants this filter. It is disgusting, and will hopefully be one of the deciding factors to you're loss of government in the next election. Deceptive, interfering pollies, with very little understanding of IT at all. And while we're at it, you're doing a wonderful job of stuffing up the NBN as well. If telstra is given the network on their current terms Australia will pay for it for many many years to come. Lets just hope you don't make a folly of it, and get a result that is in the benefit of Australia, and it's citizens, and not the big corporate bully called Telstra.

Posted by Greg / 12 Dec 2008 2:45pm / Permalink

Also add my voice to disapproving of the internet filter. An optional, opt-in filter is reasonable (although several Australian ISPs already provide such a service), but no censorship should ever be mandatory, especially when perfectly valid games like GTA IV are refused classification in Australia.

Posted by Arved / 12 Dec 2008 2:44pm / Permalink

Please don't waste OUR money on pointless filtering technology Senator Conroy. I didn't know childcare was part of your portfolio...

Posted by Johnny G / 12 Dec 2008 2:20pm / Permalink

I think texinick hit the nail on the head by saying "As long as the plans for a filter exist, it's going to affect just about every question that the department ask on this blog". As someone who works in the IT security space there are just so many things wrong with the filtering proposal on almost every front that I don't know where to begin. Even more disturbing are the child protection dills who make statements like "It's a black day for Australia" because a major ISP decides not to participate in the trials. If this is what passes for logical argument and reasoned debate then we're all doomed - with or without the digital economy. As an IT professional the digital economy is where I make my living - although I don't spend much of my leisure time there these days. One of the major challenges for the digital economy is providing equitable access across the country. There's a lot of talk about what speeds should be considered an acceptable standard of service and how much data should be included in a basic service. But I've seen no discussion of any criteria around latency - the time it takes packets to traverse the network. As a former user of a two way satellite service (which is the only choice apart from dialup for many rural and remote users) I believe latency should be a key factor. Many of the emerging Internet based services (VoIP is one example) cannot function effectively on a high latency link. Those who can only get that type of link will be excluded from the benefits of those services. We need to aim for a better outcome than that.

Posted by TK / 12 Dec 2008 2:03pm / Permalink

As a publisher of electronic material and online courses for students in Australia I am very concerned at the Government's proposal to filter the internet. It is far better to teach children and students how to use the internet correctly and how to source information correctly than to presume to do it for them. To consider filtering the web would be a big step backwards for Australia and put us at a disadvantage to those countries where there is free access to the internet.

Posted by Heidi Allen / 12 Dec 2008 12:49pm / Permalink

To address the topic at hand first the benefit to Australia of a digital economy will be great. Most likely we will not fully realise many of the benefits until we are actually there. As many of the benefits have already been mentioned or are extremely obvious I’ll list a few points that need to be overcome in order to truly enter a digital economy. 1) All households and businesses must be connected to the internet. Whilst government and business need to cater for both those with internet and those without administrative cost will remain prohibitively high. 2) Connection needs to be at > 100mb/s. Whilst the 30mb/s connection maximum at present suffices for most in the near future the shear volume of information that needs to be transmitted will greatly increase, especially with more and more talk of ‘cloud computing’. 3) Dismissal of this censorship idea. It’s a Draconian plan with no fundamental benefits to support its enactment. It’s an affront to democracy and will hold Australia back. 4) Revision of current Intellectual property and Piracy laws. Whilst the laws may have been appropriate back in the 80s times have changed a great deal.

Posted by Martin / 12 Dec 2008 12:46pm / Permalink

I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at Labor & Senator Conray's attempt to introduce a mandatory Internet censorship filter. By nature the Internet works through the free flow of decentralised information. These ineffective filters will inadvertently censor webpages making Australians third-world information recipients. Attempts to hinder the Internet through filtering will not only reduce access speeds significantly as shown in clinical trials and statements by ISPs but will dampen any attempt to broaden our future digital economy. Senator Conroy's inability to understand these basic concept illustrates his unworthiness as Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. His attempts to bully the ISP industry and label his vocal opponents negatively again reflect poorly upon himself and have been noted by voters. Incredulously the world is watching on whether we will join restrictive Internet states such as China, Iran and North Korea. Senator Conroy's ineptitude recalls the bungling rein of Liberal's former Minister for this portfolio Richard Alston. Labor's desire for Senator Steve Fielding's approval also recalls the position held by former Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine. Secular Australia and the basic human right of unrestricted information cannot be dictated by a vocal, uninformed minority. PM Kevin Rudd still has my respect but needs to appoint a qualified person for the portfolio of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and reformulate its Internet policy. The government should pursue a policy of education, policing and the provision of optional home-based software filtering. Labor have no doubt this is primary electoral issue for technologists such as myself and I will be voting at all future elections based on the outcome of this ridiculous Internet filtering legislation.

Posted by withnail / 12 Dec 2008 12:34pm / Permalink

You ask two questions: Q1 What do you think the benefits to Australia of the digital economy are? Q2 How do you think we can ensure that those benefits are enjoyed by all Australians? In response I offer 2 answers. A1) the benefits are real and measurable to all Australian citizens and businesses. The rapid and free access to data for information, decision making and trade will translate into real GDP benefits... but before appluading yourselves note answer 2 below. A2) To ensure these benefits you need to have affordable, transparent and fast internet connections. This relates directly to the NBN and Internet Filtering policies of the current government. The NBN must provide an impartial utility style access that provides fast and affordable connection capacity. Please ensure you learn from past telecommunication fiascos such as Australia's cable roll out. We need a public utility for public benefit. Corporate Australia (or anyone) can benefit from this but they should not run it. the desire for profit will take over public benefit if they do. Secondly to maintain transparency you must abandon this ill conceived mandatory filter policy. The technical issues demonstrate that it will slow our speeds. Technology to escape filtering via VPN is already well established and will defeat any filtering effort. New technologies and practices will emerge to circumvent any mandatory filter. The ethical issues of mandatory filtering and having a "secret list" of banned sites are staggering. The absence of a Bill of Rights in Australia is something that I am pleased the government is reviewing but the mandatory filtering policy is at odds with it.

Posted by Argus / 12 Dec 2008 12:30pm / Permalink

The overwhelming response for the internet community against the internet filter makes this government, and their blog out to be a complete joke. You have no support at all. For those of you in Melbourne, see you all at the protest tomorrow, noon at the State Library.

Posted by bsolah / 12 Dec 2008 11:45am / Permalink

How can the internet make the world a better place? Communication. by adding your filters you will be limiting your voice, and reach of communication. if your going to put a filter on the internet, somebody is going to remove it and then show everybody else how he did it. you're conerned with piracy and pornography. does this mean that you are also going to stop p2p file transfers and vpn? how are businesses meant to function? could it just be solved with a free version of netnanny and if the parent doesn't install it then its the parents fault. my solution is to use the money that you have been wasting on this frivolous idea and to put it to better use to expand network capabilities to more rural areas. In my honest opinion, i believe that Conroy just doesn't understand the internet and what his effect on it will have on the economy. so here's a solid idea for him on how to make a "better" digital economy... WiFi Hotspots!!. Put your internet filters on them if you wish. They are YOUR internet connections. You could always just make the internet free. i wouldn't care about a filter if i didn't pay to use it. btw i would just disable the filter or bypass it.

Posted by Chris / 12 Dec 2008 11:25am / Permalink

My suggestions:- - drop the filter/censor idea (stop wasting public funds on such un-necessary endeavours) - educate/encourage people to use e-com on regualr basis - provide incentives to do so - encourage new & brilliant ideas that'll take Australia past it's current status in the digital economy . - influence young minds, don't drive them away, allow them to prove what they can achieve given the chance Peace Out!

Posted by Ozblogger / 12 Dec 2008 11:10am / Permalink

So where is the big new broadband we were promised in the election? Has anything at all been done? It's a year after the election, and all we're getting is being dictated to like morons that we have to have a SLOWER net. I still have the same $60 a month connection of 1.5mbps. Talk to anyone online in America and they pretty much piss themselves laughing. A standard connection over there is about 5mbps I'm told and half the price.

Posted by smokey / 12 Dec 2008 11:07am / Permalink

well this filter is a poor decision and so is the fiber to the node.. we have that allready.. fibre going directly to the exchanges. what is the government thinking ? we need fibre to the house not the node. then and only then will be in a position to see the benefits. also this filter is a slippery slop and it will be abused by the current government will abuse it as well, and any person/s who lobby will get there way. it is a first step to a dictatorship and what we can and can not do as long as it follows the government policy on how we think and what we do must all be for the governement. when infact the governement is by the people and for the people.. the people are not for the government to use and do with as they please. the government is there for the people and do the peoples bidding and it is clear that this filter is not the peoples bidding and nether the fibre to the node...

Posted by derekj / 12 Dec 2008 10:48am / Permalink

Nice objective: stop people seeing what they shouldn't on the web. Trouble is the instrument is blunt and will kill the web for Australian users. The web economy is critical to Australia's economy. It won't work if censored. So the alternative is to show respect to the people of Australia and let them make their own decisions about what they will watch on the web. If it's illegal book 'em. [ALP member (and I have met you Steve), medical professional, dependent on a functioning internet]

Posted by Jim / 12 Dec 2008 10:31am / Permalink

The Minister is (or should be) getting advice that net filtering (a) won't work and (b) will have negative impacts on internet speeds. He is however, committed to some form of filtering as a political necessity. Therefore, the political reality is that the Minister needs to come up with an alternative policy to achieve similar goals. May I suggest that the Government offers a subsidy for consumers who wish to purchase one of the commercially-available filtering programs e.g. Cybersitter. This would be more directly-targeted and workable for those who want it - and allow the Government to save face politically.

Posted by Shane Sody / 12 Dec 2008 10:14am / Permalink

Filtering It is a very simple thing to bypass the proposed filtering methods. It would take less than 5 minutes. It will cost the ISP's a huge amount of money to implement. Why not take the 150 million dollars and give it to the federal police to chase down those people committing e-crime. NBN Cancel the NBN, take the $5 billion and turn it into tax breaks for any communications carriers who invest in rural / remote exchange areas. Imagine ISP's with that much more money to invest in infrastructure. Assigning that much money to only one infrastructure build will inhibit competition not encourage it

Posted by nigel / 12 Dec 2008 10:14am / Permalink

Let's face it, Conroy is using child pornography as a Trojan Horse. By appealing to "protecting the children" he is hoping Australians will opt for slower internet, higher costs, and extensive government-controlled censorship. Why? Because throughout the ages, governments have feared people getting hold of information. They see the internet as a threat and therefore want to control it. This is why his plans have no opt-in or opt-out component. They are designed to be compulsory for ALL Australians, whether you have kids or not. Beyond any other issue, THIS is the vote-changer for me. I volunteered my time at the last election to help Labor win government. I now feel extremely betrayed. If Conroy goes ahead with his plans, I will put every effort into trying to get rid of this government at the next election.

Posted by Ant / 12 Dec 2008 10:09am / Permalink

I wish to be counted as another, long time user of the internet, steadfastly and implacably opposed to the filtering of the internet part of the Labor Party internet governance. Senator, please convey this information to the 36 faceless men (?persons now) who invent and promulgate these policies.

Posted by DrPhil / 12 Dec 2008 10:08am / Permalink

Senator Conroy, I would look more favourably on your initiatives, such as this blog, if you dropped your plans to censor the internet. As a supposedly free, Western country, these Iran-style plans are utterly embarrassing, and potentially dangerous. Holding back the digital economy is hardly a smart move when the country is experiencing an economic downturn. This is the 21st century, need I remind you Senator Conroy.

Posted by Anthony / 12 Dec 2008 9:49am / Permalink

Senator Conroy, I believe the mandatory Internet filtering proposal must not be implemented. I think enough experts have shown that every filtering technology trialled to date is ineffective, prone to collateral blocking, underblocking, and will do nothing to stop sick people from creating and sharing material that exploits children.

I also believe the doubts of privacy advocates, child welfare groups, the country's largest ISP (and others) and the general public as indicated by the protests and tremendously negative media coverage should be indicative to any but a mute man that this policy is a bad idea. John Howard ignored us on Iraq and plenty of other issues, dont make the same mistake Senator Conroy! You are ruining it for Labour and giving the country more reasons to vote the Libs back in next election with this unnecessary mandatory filtering scheme that makes the libs look liberal and labour ultra conservative! You could solve the problem right now by making it opt-in, or uniquely for blocking child porn ONLY and NOTHING ELSE. To quote Benjamin Franklin - those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither!

Posted by AndrewH / 12 Dec 2008 9:33am / Permalink

The digital economy will not move forward if you filter the internet. Our broadband will slow by 80% as shown in tests, and large swathes of the internet, including access to editing wikipedia will be blocked (as shown in the UK, using the very same filtering list you plan on using).

People overwhelmingly rejected Howard's move to filter the internet and will do the same to your efforts (which are far and away more draconian than Howard's).

I and many others will vote against you at the next election, to ensure that only parties against filtering retain their seats.

Senator Conroy must be sacked as he has shown time and time again his ignorance of the internet.

You've currently got over 200 comments here, you will soon have over 10, 000. All will be anti-filtering.

Also, if you are even contemplating allowing Telstra to build the new broadband network, you have rocks in your head. They charge the same price as other country's (much faster) broadband access, for their incredibly slow copper access.

You already know about the petitions on this issue, what more do you need to hear to understand that facism will not be accepted in Australia.

The Greens and the Liberals must vote against this in the senate. It's strange - it's the first time I'll have supported the Liberals.

Posted by Jeremy / 12 Dec 2008 9:20am / Permalink