Setting the right regulatory framework

A clean-feed filtering can be debated on two levels. 1st, a practical level ie network slowdowns, overblocking, underblocking and circumvention. On this level, previous trials have shown large slowdowns with poor blocking rates. The slowdowns go against what Labor have promised (a faster national network). The poor blocking rates highlight a similar problem to a 99% uptime promise; being a 3 day per year downtime. Small percentages of blocking errors amount to large numbers of pages incorrectly blocked or let through. The finer points of this first, practical level can only be debated about a particular system, especially in regards to circumvention but general experience is that programs to reduce underblocking result in more overblocking and slows down the network most. Methods to prevent circumvention through the use of secure networks etc will impact more on business using the internet for secure transactions. A method of recourse for overblocked pages must also be available, given the economic impact of an incorrectly blocked page could have on a business. The debate about if such filtering is required or desired needs to be weighed against the technical realities. To do this, more details about the filtering proposal needs to be released. Keeping these things behind closed doors makes people wary of such measures being rushed through before debate can be had on the actual proposal, not the vague hints provided so far.

Posted by JamesFarnell / 23 Dec 2008 11:42pm / Permalink

The Government should provide every Australian with a free email address and website hosting to ensure that each person has one, just as each person has a mailing address in real life. Actually, this is probably a bad idea. Perhaps a free domain is something worthwhile though: eg like http://firstname.lastname.state.au/ Copyright duration in digital works like software should be greatly circumscribed. Windows 95 is now obsolete and not sold by Microsoft. It is only 13 years old. What is the point of a 70 year copyright? You can consider any software made in the last 20 years and see which of it is still used. You will note that the software that is still used has generally been made in less than the last decade. Anything over a decade old is virtually unused and not worth copying (for pirates) or using (for consumers). This is unlike the original subject of copyright -- literary works (ie books) -- as these are basically timeless and can be picked up at any future point in time and read and understood as if written yesterday. (This is another contrast with copyright: software more than a few years old generally does not run on modern computers without significant effort.) Software should not be protected by copyright but by something akin to Designs registration. Software has more in common with the things traditionally protected by designs than it does with books. Source code is basically the plan. Object code is basically the machined part according to the plan. This is a perfect fit with the traditional conception of designs, including the period of designs registration, which is more appropriate for software than the copyright period. Software patents should not exist. These stifle innovation. Biological patents should not exist in their present form. Patents should only be allowed for certain invented uses of the genes, not merely discovered uses.

Posted by Anonymouse / 23 Dec 2008 11:33pm / Permalink

What ever is to be done, what we need is an open net to all so PLEASE stop the filtering of ISP's.

Posted by Blue / 23 Dec 2008 1:13pm / Permalink

I was reading Sen.Conroy's comment that the 'Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech.' Well he needs to curb his arrogance, whether he views it in such a way or not isn't worth a used train ticket at the ballot box if the general population views it as an imposition on their freedom of speech. Also in a bigger picture framework, what type of country disarms their population and curbs freedom of speech, Russia, China and now Australia. Seems more than one political party has an agenda. This is why all measures that restrict freedoms should be looked at in a negative biased 'What If' manner. These issues say that innocent till proven guilty apply on an individual basis but not to the general populace as a whole.

Posted by Akakjack / 23 Dec 2008 9:18am / Permalink

One of the issues that faces the DE, and involves international negotiations, is the way the same item of intellectual property (e.g. software, data, entertainment, engineering specifications) can have various licences, such as free for non-commercial use AND non-free for commercial use. Deciding whether a particular use is non-commercial or commercial, is tricky, as shown by recent activity by the Creative Commons trying to refine their "non-commercial" licence. These grey areas can include: * Use by an agency of government that charge money (e.g. roads and traffic authorities) * Use by an organization that sells goods to generate a social good (while not officially a non-profit) * Use by a normal company, but not directly in a revenue stream (e.g. use to support the organization's technical infrastructure, but not part of the product line) Organizations such as CreativeCommons.org are using very senior academic lawyers to develop various licences, and those definitions could be recognized officially by Australian law. This would allow people and companies to use (and share) "Creative Commons"-type goods without charge, but with confidence there would be no litigation, while giving confidence to producers of intellectual property that they can receive any compensation due them when used commercially. Similar considerations apply to misuse of products placed under the GNU.org GPL and LGPL. There have been quite tricky cases overseas where companies have included GPL/LGPL products in commercial product lines, but have not adhered to the licence conditions. Confidence by companies (and individuals) in the enforcability of such licences (which may require an advertising campaign) will allow companies and persons to make best use of freely-available goods (lowering costs to businesses), and also encourage intellectual property producers to release items under mixed free/non-free conditions. I recommend that dbcde.gov.au and legal agencies investigate licences such as the GPL, LGPL, and those described through , then prepare information to help the community make best use of such materials. I'd also recommend that such licences should be near-automatic for the products of all agencies of government (e.g. those from the ABS). Again, guidelines to agencies on which licence is most appropriate for which of their products would be useful.

Posted by David Bath / 20 Dec 2008 2:19pm / Permalink

This Forum is about "Setting the right regulatory framework", ..................and what a disaster that has been upto now. For any digital Economy to grow it needs to be taken care of, and not poisoned by an overly burgeonsome regulatory environment, we can see what happens as the result of that in Telecommunications, Regulation, where we are constantly debating on how the same cake needs to be cutup. (again & again) If regulation in Australia becomes to tight companies will move offshore, yet if they are too lose 'digital crimes' will increase, the problem is that there is no consistancy Internationally speaking. For example: What is a legal digital business overseas, may not be legal here, Spain may allow the peer to peer file sharing, of a current release Disney Movie' provided no money (gratitudes) are exchanged and what is shared is for private use only, yet here that activity would infrindge several Australian Laws. So more to the point where on the Digital Economy line, does the Government want us to be ? Unless there is consistancy across International Boundries, then we will host content here that may be objectionable in say a Middle East, and their IP Filtering will block it, just the same as ours does. (Digital Protectionism) Then there is the whole question of Digital Tarifs and Digital Taxes, why would I open a business here that would make Millions of Dollars and pay thousands in Taxes, when I can open the same business in Monaco and pay none. ? But turing to a more constructive approach, the first step is to allow real competition in the physical access area, not just a re-cutting of the same old cake, a new set of rules on how many pieces of cake a player can have, etc. I haven't been following this NBN debate closely, but if the result is simply another hybrid of the same network, it is simply a waste of time, what is needed is a completely seperate network, perhaps "Broadband Of The Power Lines" or a combination of technologies to deliver real broadband competition. A entirely new seperate Fibre Network to the Home, would be the best option, and then start to dismantle some of the current Regulation, and let Market Forces take contol. At present all this particular regulation does, is make one party rich, at another parties expense, discourages competition, by "declaring" whatever is ploughed into the ground as available to all and sundry, what incentive is there to develop anything in Australia if this is an example of how they do business. ? For me to develop a Digital Business here, I would want to make damm sure that my product and services is not simply declared in the national interest, and given away at a price that is determined by a well meaning outsider (like the ACCC.) The real question should be what "Regulatory Incentives" can the Australia Government offer "Digital Ecomony" based Companies to operate in Australia, a start might be to declare them a Customs TRADE FREE ZONE, thus making their development costs a lot lower than they currently are. Lets face it I can simply move my digital business onto a File-Server off shore if things become to overly regulated here.

Posted by Edward Savage / 20 Dec 2008 10:48am / Permalink

It seems that filtering has been extended to the Digital Economy Future Directions Consultation Paper. This paper excludes comments on filtering as the Minister presumably takes the view that there is a future with filtering. Given that low access network throughput (contention) combined with access network line rates mean that Australia is already uncompetitive, why bother consulting on the future of a digital economy which will be so adversely affected by the filtering proposed by a Minister who only seems to understand Senator Fielding and not the technology.

I understand that NBN might be off the table for the review, but given that the Minister seems from his speech on "shared network" this week not to understand contention, perhaps the future of the digital economy is so dire that any comments on the paper are not worth while.

Posted by Contended from Coogee / 19 Dec 2008 12:15pm / Permalink

Review necessary? No – those persons that come up against a regulatory barrier (needing reform) shall let you know. You may then act or not (take the content filter as an example). Why pay consultants to ponder hypotheticals?

Digital economy (DE) market failure Regulation could and should reform property rights. Tier 1 infrastructure (i.e. fibre and copper to the Node) is a natural monopoly and should be owned by all Australians (i.e. Government) – give up regulating 3rd party access prices and buy it back from Telstra - buy the entire company back just to achieve that if necessary. Tier 2 infrastructure (i.e. fibre and copper from the Node to Houses) should be owned by the Household – regulate to ensure rent seekers are sidelined. Households may insure their fibre for maintenance/ repair or not – it 's their choice – in any case it absolutely costs nothing like $25 to $100 per month to have it maintained and I'm sure eventual insurance rates would back that opinion 100%!

Posted by Hamlet / 19 Dec 2008 9:46am / Permalink

The business impact of internet filtering needs to be closely considered regarding any proposed mandatory filtering proposal. Gambling needs to be considered from a national perspective - there is scant change for state-based legislations to adequately manage the global nature of gambling in the current world. Equally any type of economic or social activity that occurs online must have a nationally agreed framework, or be under federal control for effective management. Effectively state-governments do not have the power to provide effective governance in a connected world, and should be downsized to regional units focused on service provision rather than regulation. GST and other taxes need to be rethought regarding how they apply in a world where people may choose to buy from any supplier, regardless of their geographic location. Taxes based on supplier location could become limiters to economic activity where a purchaser can simply choose to buy from a supplier located in a lower-tax jurisdiction. I can see this transferring more tax burden to buyers in order to maintain revenues. Copyright requires serious rethinking, starting with government use of strict copyrights rather than Creative Commons and stretching to the failure of copyright to effectively regulate the music and movie industries. These industries have resisted change to their detriment and are seeking to close gates after bolting horses. The government has a role in shifting the landscape to encourage publishers to shift with it in order to maintain profitability without restricting access to content desired by the community. The nobbling of TIVO by Channel 7 and the suing of iiNet are two examples of the desperation by which these industries are seeking to maintain their old business models in the face of widespread community disaffection. Artist rights need to be protected, but not necessarily for the massive profits of middlemen who controlled physical distribution channels. With new channels we need new approaches. Business registration and regulation is another area that requires national consideration. When I can register a business name in one state and trade globally it can create enormous issues. This needs to move to a federal program, allowing geographically limited naming in specific circumstances. This kind of approach would allow the internet rights (for Australia) for a business name to be regulated by the government and reduce issues where organisations of the same name in different geographic regions (within Australia or overseas) compete over online turf. The game industry, which is larger than the movie industry, should be appropriately recognised as a mature and desired industry, with the implementation of an R category to place it inline with the movie classification scheme. National classifications should not be based on the outdated views of a single state Attorney-General, but on community values. Also the industry should see the same support as the movie industry in Australia (or possibly much better considering some of the deplorable funding decisions on Australian movies). This would help broaden Australian participation in this global market and support the development of our entire IT sector. I don't see the same broad benefits for our business performance of keeping a few Australian actors and cameramen in work - their skills are not transferable in the same manner as programmers. Australia also needs to look at where it should NOT regulate. Regulation should be a last resort where the market does not provide equitable means of balance and redress. I believe that Australia has not done too badly in balancing the level of regulation, and should continue to be reluctant to regulate where market forces are working already - such as for internet filtering, where commercial products are readily available to all who want them.

Posted by CraigT / 18 Dec 2008 7:54am / Permalink

Seriously? Consider actively regulating IN FAVOR OF Net Neutrality. Look at the mess they're in over in the United States: large corporations want to charge people twice for the same data. Everyone else wants Net Neutrality i.e. things to continue working the same way; the way that made the internet what it is. Every serious "digital economy" company wants Net Neutrality. Ask the people at Google (Australia). Ask the people at Ebay.

Posted by Jan / 17 Dec 2008 10:48pm / Permalink

If you think anyone is seriously going to consider setting up shop here with a mandatory internet filter and 12Mbit/s residential connections, you need to get out more. I've had friends leave Australia and take their business with them because our speeds are too slow to be remotely competitive. The mere fact that the filter is even on your agenda is spooking the people who aren't rolling on the floor laughing.

Posted by Alex12 / 17 Dec 2008 10:29pm / Permalink

Its quite laughable that the Department of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy can stress the importance of "how Australia's regulatory framework can enable the digital economy" when the Clean Feed has the potential to damage the overall digital economy (and, I might mention, real economy). In trials, the so called "Clean Feed" (whose accuracy I question) slowed the web down by an average of 30 per cent. Even if with the opt-out, a secondary filter will be in place that will slow down web traffic and no-doubt block legitimate websites (who I can only assume will remain blocked less they can "opt-in", pending some bureaucratic review process). Even when one factors in the national broadband network it seems unlikely that -long term- Australia can compete with its regional neighbors and, more importantly, the rest of the developed world. From my viewpoint, it appears that the government is actually placing obstacles in the way of "realising the full potential of Australia's digital economy". How can one use the web to "shrink physical distances and reduce existing market barriers" if the government places obstacles in the way of faster web speeds? Both in terms of e-commerce, and in terms of e-customers? This is not to mention the temptation that present and future governments might have to misuse the filter on political grounds without proper and active oversight. So far I have not heard adequate explanation from Conroy or from DBCDE on how this risk can be ameliorated in a timely manner.

Posted by Neglected Voter / 17 Dec 2008 9:33pm / Permalink

The second question posed is "What, if any, regulatory obstacles exist to realising the full potential of Australia's digital economy?" At one level the answer to this is the answer to the earlier question about whether the laws need changing.

But at a higher level of abstraction the impedments can be seen in the way e go about making laws. Is the Department actively seeking out the economic, social and technical developments of which they need to be informed to advise the Minister of policy directions, or just sitting back waiting for direction from Government. Are the remits of the ACCC and ACMA sufficient to deal to any unfolding issues?

I think the answer to these is that the Department isn't keeping up to date - the approach to the blog, the handling of the filtering policy, the absence of any DE discussion till now make that pretty clear. And while the ACCC and ACMA will make the occassional flurry the bulk of their work is all about the minutiae of implementing the rules for the circuit switched world.

The discussion opener then asks the bloggers whether we are aware of anything else out there in terms of regulatory frameworks. This really disappoints me. I thought what the Government paid the public servants for was to do this kind of research. How hard is it?

Finally (until it is fixed) my apolgy to posts following my last post. An unclosed tag to put the title of a book in italics has made verything from that point on - including other posts - italic.

Posted by Verity Pravda / 17 Dec 2008 5:30pm / Permalink

Australia's regulatory framework should be no more or no less onerous than the regulation of off-line activities.

Posted by Ken Kadiroglu / 17 Dec 2008 3:56pm / Permalink

Separate wholesale and retail across the fixed line telecoms industry. Treat it like a utility. Combine this with a FTTH overbuild to increase competition in the wholesale market.

Posted by Jeff / 17 Dec 2008 3:54pm / Permalink

The first question posed is "Given that both online economic and social activities are important for Australia to maximise the benefits of the digital economy, is there a need to identify those parts of our legal framework that most impact the digital economy and review how our laws inhibit or promote digital economy activities?"

At one level this question is almost superflous, of course there is a need to review how our laws impact on the DE. The question is whether that review is likely to indicate there are major areas that wll require change.

There are a couple of stand-out examples. The ACCC in its review of emerging market structures indicated some concern about the possibility of tieing content to distributon platforms. There has already been some litigation in the field. A greater degree of clarity about the policy intent would be good - and I personally think there is a need to ensure an any-to-any regime applies. In fact there is a need to fully ensure that the Trade Practices Act (and the court's interpretation of that) covers the significant issues of network economies. (See the Shapiro and Varian book Information Rules for a discussion.)

There are clearly inconsistencies in the way the law deals with kinds of content. The Government in its "filtering" policy is trying to address the need to be able to represent the kind of content classification scheme that applies to film and magazines to internet content. It is hamstrung by the mess left by the previous government on defining "prohibited content" from a hosting point of view.

There is also greater regulatory clarity required to promote the hosting of content and hostng of applications in country. Many of the bigger content sites who we pay transmission to access in the US have said they don't want to host here because of the risks.

As we've also seen there are also some very uncertain areas around the operation of defamation laws, some of these could extend to risks around misleading or deceptive conduct in commercial law or securities law.

These are just the major domestic ones, some of which touch on the commonwealth/state jurisdictional issue. More important is the need to develop some kind of global regulatory framework similar to that that supports trade in the "real" economy. That should be a transparent and visible process - the home should NOT be the ITU nor the WTO. Challenge - what is the appropriate international forum?

Posted by Verity Pravda / 17 Dec 2008 2:39pm / Permalink

Mmm, no comments since 16 Dec 2008 3:03pm. Have we all grown reticent or is a ministerial tantrum in progress?

Posted by Alan in Sydney / 17 Dec 2008 2:00pm / Permalink

This would make a great segue into the ISP censoring issue. Let's talk about that; sooner rather than later please. Regulating the internet in that fashion would seriously inhibit our ability to be a real contender in all the scenarios you've outlined above. Our internet needs to be as fast as possible with minimal regulation. The other issue is the limited range of our broadband network. Someone needs to get tough with Telstra and make them roll out cable internet to places other than capital cities. Either that or the government needs to establish it's own, neutral network - although I understand the cost of doing this is prohibitive. Still, this is 2008 and it's getting ridiculous.

Posted by Rohan / 17 Dec 2008 1:49am / Permalink

Regulation of the data market is essential to Australia's legal and political stability, this is a given. The commodity that is traded when we talk about the internet is data, thats all. A modem is no different to an electricity meter box or a water meter box. They facilitate the transfer of a resource between the world at large and an individual person or companies location. The modem's commodity is data. The utility industries are heavily regulated, and a similar structure needs to be used in the data market. The only major difference is that instead of there being a single major source of the resource, each user is also a generator of data (although if distributed electricity generation gets off the ground the same will be true for electricity). An electricity retail provider is not liable if their product is used to make terrorist weapons, even if the place is using a noticably large amount of electricity that should set off warnings. Thus it must be the same that ISP's are not responsible for the use of the data on their network. Just as with electricity and the media the infrastructure/ retail/ and content sectors of the industry must be kept seperate. If a retailer also runs the infrastructure then there is no way another retailer can be on an even footing as the law is too ambiguously written and always results in expensive court cases to argue about terminology. A retailer must also not be allowed to be a content provider, as they will use this ability to bundle their services in a method another retailer cannot compete with. Imagine if Telstra owned Google, whats to stop telstra from excluding google searches in its data allowance, Optus cannot compete with that. Its the equivalent in the electricity market as if Channel 10 owned Origin, if the technology existed they could offer the deal that you dont pay for the electricity used to watch only channel 10. Obviously this would never be allowed (if it were possible), yet an equivalent antitrust situation is occuring with telstra now where they offer freebies with there bundle packages, over a range of markets that should be seperated. Home phone (infrastructure, data), Internet (data), Foxtel (media), mobile phones (infrastructure, data). Smaller ISP's dont have access to the ability to discount home phone calls or subsidise the cost of pay tv, so they are at an unfair disadvantage. This is how the regulatory system for telecommunications should be, its a utility industry after all and should be treated as such.

Posted by Stephen / 17 Dec 2008 12:31am / Permalink

Regulate our internet, censor our internet, accuse us of loving kiddie porn if we disagree. wow crank it up. i can't wait for the debut of the Rudd 'o' net, theres only one site and it contains a picture of Conroy pointing and laughing at us... and costs 8 times more while being 15 times slower. Honestly we need a few politicians that have actually lived in the real world. It would help if they were actually users of the intermahnet

Posted by Jay / 16 Dec 2008 5:57pm / Permalink

Ialways regard the concept of regulation warily.. It is usually heavy-handed against the consumer and rife for manipulation by Corporate Lawyers.. Obviously the strengthening of existing anti-comptitive regulation must continue, with particular look at the last loop. FTTN is useless without attention being paind to the link to the premises. Also I think that there should also be an extension of the kind of tax breaks and funding opportunities that the Film and TV industry enjoys to include the Game Development community. After all. Many of the top games these days are making more than most cinema releases. Should we not be as proud of their international successes as would would be with films(if we could produce a successful one).Personally, I'd prefer to see less intervention by the government because the last couple of governments sure have missed the whole point of it. As said above, there is no offline and online, it is all integrated and interwoven with daily life..

Posted by Chaps / 16 Dec 2008 5:41pm / Permalink

Changing the subject, even dressing it up in brain-dead bureaucratic bumf like 'how Australia's regulatory framework can enable the digital economy' will not make the opposition to ISP filtering go away. The filter will hamstring the digital economy. It already bids fair to make us the laughingstock of the digital world. The ISP filter will not work because it can only effect HTTP traffic and illegal material is not principally trafficked by HTTP. The filter will not work because the government's plan makes no provision for transparent review and correction of the blacklist, The filter will not work because it transfers decision-making from individuals and families to a bureaucracy that plainly does not understand the technology. The filter will work to slow our already creaky digital infrastructure to a crawl. Perhaps you could adopt a more effective policy like requiring every Internet user to have a guy with a red flag walk in front of them when they travel the information superhighway.

Posted by Alan-Sydney / 16 Dec 2008 5:34pm / Permalink

"is there a need to identify those parts of our legal framework that most impact the digital economy and review how our laws inhibit or promote digital economy activities?" Well considering you seek to throw us into the same type of internet black spot as China, Lybia and North Korea I'd say the largest roadblack to the Australian digital economy is the proposed mandatory filter composed of a secret list compiled by a group of individuals who answer to no public body. Not to mention the issues of speed reduction on Asutralia's already pathetic internet infrastucture coupled with over and under blocking.

Posted by Stainless Steel Rat / 16 Dec 2008 4:42pm / Permalink

How can you seriously ask this question when Conroy's ISP filters, the Great Australian Internet Potholes, have not been repudiated? Apparently you are not listening to industry or the folks here, and seek even more 'regulatory' potholes. Why not speak in terms of 'supportive' legislation as opposed to regulation? Why not cut to the chase and make all Australia's internet filtered through one big firewall like in Saudi Arabia, Iran or China. Then taxing and regulating foreign and local business would be a breeze, with the added bonus of controlling what Australians can and can't access on the net from one handy central, cost-effective location? Never mind that innovation and creativity thrive on freedom - the government could regulate and pander at will to whoever are its current pet corporations, religious freaks and secular wowsers.

Posted by Vamps / 16 Dec 2008 4:41pm / Permalink

And yes, I agree with SH that previous attempts at censorship simply took money out of our economy and achieved little else. I would assert that the current attempts will have much the same effect.

Posted by Sam D / 16 Dec 2008 4:37pm / Permalink

I am amazed that the government is still going ahead with internet filtering. this system will cripple our current digital economy and the future economy. even at best case scenaros overblocking of 1% is around 20 million websites that are legal which are blocked. if taken the average of 3~5% that is around 60~100 million legal websites blocked. this will impact companies who trade solely online. what is to say the optional filter, becomes optional. i for one am a lot older than 15years old and do not need the government telling me what i can read or not on the web. I also have children too and guess what... i monitor their net access closely, the pc is also in the living area so anyone can see where they are.. the money should be spent on educating people and also funding the afp to actually catch the people. your inferance time and again that those against the filter are for child porn. is down right insulting, i for one am against that rubbish. but having grown up with the internet i have never accidently come accross it and know full well how to kkeep my kids safe.. not to mention your tasmanian trial was overcome by children.. also why are you not testing real basis with real customers... how can you gaurantee my transactions to the bank is safe? you are not disabling the offenders with this proposal but will be enabling them and disableing the police and their ability to catch the criminals.

Posted by Derekj / 16 Dec 2008 4:33pm / Permalink

There are only a few types of regulation that actively enable the development of the digital economy (and the economy in general): Regulation that minimises anti-competitive behaviour by companies and regulation that protects the rights of individuals. In both cases this comes down to stopping both companies and individuals from infringing each others rights. In both cases the best outcome in terms of personal liberty and economic efficiency are gained by application of the least amount of regulation necessary to stop this infringement.

Posted by Sam D / 16 Dec 2008 4:30pm / Permalink

@mifkin:

Not necessarily, although an overly regulated environment is almost invariably bad. Regulation can be positive for the consumer (and businesses), such as with the ACCC's refusal to let eBay make PayPal the only available payment method (since eBay owns PayPal). So there can be good regulation; unfortunately, it tends to get mired in the bureaucracy of bad regulation, or simply over-regulated.

@Stainless Steel Rat:

Definitely what I was thinking, but I was trying to steer clear of that topic on this post. The effect of the filter on e-commerce would be devastating given the timeout limits on credit card transactions, etc.

O/T: Is it just me or do these posts read more like assignments/essay topics than a blog? I feel like I'm back at uni (and doing someone else's assignment)...

Posted by MattR / 16 Dec 2008 4:18pm / Permalink

Censorship and regulation of the internet and the digital economy in Australia are already the most restrictive in the free world, by a considerable margin, but the government now plans to implement the only mandatory internet censorship regime in the free world as well. With this running leap backwards in online freedoms, perhaps it's time to reconsider whether we really belong to the "free" world after all. As for the impact of previous internet censorship legislation? It just drove the economy overseas. We know the filter will be ineffective, but it will still slow the internet and raise the cost of internet services in Australia, and will drive the economy even further overseas as people open VPNs and tunnels to countries that actually respect freedom of expression. By all means, maintain an online presence (e.g. this blog), but the best thing you can do for the digital economy is keep your grubby hands off it.

Posted by SH / 16 Dec 2008 4:14pm / Permalink

Question: "What, if any, regulatory obstacles exist to realising the full potential of Australia's digital economy?"

Answer: The proposed ISP filtering scheme threatens the potential of Australia's digital economy by: (a) Reducing our already poor internet speeds to a crawl by creating filter bottlenecks; (b) Creating security problems for e-commerce by interfering with secure transactions for the purpose of filtering; and (c) Increasing the cost of internet access for every Australian citizen by placing additional burdens on ISP's.

The digital economy in Australia is already suffering due to uncertainty about the ISP filtering scheme. At the very least, Senator Conroy needs to answer some very basic questions about how he proposes to implement the proposed filter.

The filter will be quite expensive and will achieve absolutelu nothing because: (1) It doesn't filter everything, only HTTP – leaving more than half of Australian internet traffic infiltered. P2P is a technology most kids are intimately familiar with and use on a daily basis. They will still be exposed to exactly the same risk as before. (2) Child pornography is primarily shared via encrypted P2P so the filter will not affect the actions of paedophiles. (3) Filtering is easily bypassed, even by children. Many kids already bypass school internet filters on a daily basis. This filter will not stop them.

It's a stupid idea, implemented stupidly.

Posted by Klaw81 / 16 Dec 2008 4:04pm / Permalink

"Given that both online economic and social activities are important for Australia to maximise the benefits of the digital economy, is there a need to identify those parts of our legal framework that most impact the digital economy and review how our laws inhibit or promote digital economy activities?" No, there is simply not. The Government at the moment is typifying itself as the Government which sees a ficticious difference between online life and offline life. The "Good grief what shall we do about this Internet!" needs to stop, neoludditism and viewing the Internet speciously as a great unknown is counterproductive to the entire nation.

Posted by Geordie Guy / 16 Dec 2008 3:54pm / Permalink

Successive Governments' involvement in telecommunications over the last couple of decades have been nothing short of disastrous. Australia is now the most over-regulated telecommunications market on earth, and all our politicians ever do is talk about even more regulations. Australia doesn't need telecommunications regulation, it needs competition regulation. Now that Telstra is a private company just like any other private company, the telecommunications regulatory structure which was designed to transition from PMG/Telecom to a competitive marketplace should be grandfathered, and the powers of the ACCC to regulate monopolization should be strengthened while telco-specific communications regulation is backed-off. That would have the side benefit of unifying our regulations with other nations who have been far more successful at harnessing the Internet than Australia has.

Posted by newt / 16 Dec 2008 3:50pm / Permalink

"is there a need to identify those parts of our legal framework that most impact the digital economy and review how our laws inhibit or promote digital economy activities?" Well considering you seek to throw us into the same type of internet black spot as China, Lybia and North Korea I'd say the largest roadblack to the Australian digital economy is the proposed mandatory filter composed of a secret list compiled by a group of individuals who answer to no public body. Not to mention the issues of speed reduction on Asutralia's already pathetic internet infrastucture coupled with over and under blocking.

Posted by Stainless Steel Rat / 16 Dec 2008 3:26pm / Permalink

Wow. How can the regulatory environment "enable" the digital economy? Strange choice of word. ou'd think the regulatory environment might inhibit the digital economy, or on the positive side facilitate it. But ot, ever, enable. The question of the impact of electronic communication on the geographic dispersion of business is an interesting one. despite the grand prognostications about how it facilitates diverse activity the reverse happens. Consolidation, both of firms and by geography is the outcome. There is an article in Ithica de sol Pool's "The Social Impact of the Telephone" that argues the telegraph and telephone led to the growth of US cities. The consolidation of stock exchanges was facilitated by comms (we used to have separate ones in each city). The closure of country bank branches occurrd because people got the phone. (You couldn't tell customers to do phone banking before then). Interestingly there seems to be no comment here about how Australian e-banking doesn't match up to European standards. If I want to pay a bill and send a notice that I've paid it it has to be two transactions - one financial and one e-mail. Illl get to the rest in a second comment - but can I just say the initial post is just awful.

Posted by Verity Pravda / 16 Dec 2008 3:20pm / Permalink

The internet transends countries, so the less regulations a country places on it the better placed that country will be.

Posted by mifkin / 16 Dec 2008 3:03pm / Permalink