Filter pilot did not test high-speed internet

 

Will an ISP filter work in an NBN-connected world?

Enex TestLab did not test ISP-level filtering products on internet connection speeds greater than 8 Mbps, raising questions of possible degradation at ADSL2+ and fibre speeds.

Further, none of the nine ISPs who piloted filtering technologies could provide an environment to test Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), an addressing scheme the internet industry expects will be necessary in the coming years as IPv4 addresses run out.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday revealed the long-awaited Enex report on the Government's controversial trials of ISP-level filtering technologies.

The report concluded the filtering technologies did not degrade internet performance - except when filtering content above and beyond the ACMA blacklist, in which Enex found the filters were hampered by over-blocking.

But the report also shows that only internet speeds of up to 8 Mbps were subjected to the tests.

A shade over two million Australian households and 186,000 business and government users had connection speeds of 8 Mbps and beyond, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released in June.

Internode network engineer Mark Newton - a fervent opponent of the filter proposal - said it was "extraordinary" that the Federal Government had not tested the impact of content filtering on higher speed connections.

“If the Minister thinks this report puts the speed question to bed, he's sorely mistaken," Newton said.

"[He] has to accept that this report leaves open questions about whether or not his censorship policy is compatible with his 100 Mbps national broadband network."

Update: A DBCDE spokesman has since confirmed that speeds greater than 8 Mbps were not tested as ISPs involved in the live pilot could not provide those services for testing. The same reason was given for IPv6.


Filter pilot did not test high-speed internet
"BTW Sams, technology investment group I do some work for and with, have been active in the ISP and related technologies space since 1995... We try and pinpoint new technology requirements in the ..."
By Maxxi
 
 
 
Comments: 23
RDEFCON1
Dec 16, 2009 4:21 PM
hahahahahahahaha

What a farce.

Oh, and did anyone catch the bit about cash grants to enable blocks on 'additional' content "such as online gambling"? I wonder what Tabcorp thinks of that?
anonymous
Dec 16, 2009 5:13 PM

Yes, that should lock in a couple of useful Senate votes.

Pity about the collateral damage to everybody else except the godbotherers, though.

Jahm Mitt
Dec 16, 2009 6:35 PM
Yay! Christian Nazi Net is Here!!!!

The great thing about all of this religious or "culty" guff, is that all the sheeple groveling in their steeple, they all have "opinions" about what their deity is "saying" and righteously so, but the deity in the last few thousands of years of "omnipotence", has never once put in a personal appearance.

You know like if "JC and the Space Cadets" were a rock band - the clueless would have caught on that while the promoters claim that they play in gigs all over the land, but they have never turned up; while the clueless and stupid keep rocking up and buying the tickets.

Losers.

So the same overlording us with more holier than thou drivel, is projected into the area of computer games and internet sites.

Again while people get slaughtered for fun and profit in the movies and the real world, playing computer games doing the same stuff is just not on?

Why?

Am I surprised that the people thrusting their liturgical loins at the censors office for "standards and decency" are not trying to put the shackles on those who choose to have their own autonomous opinions, by declaring them to workers of the devil, sorcery and witches - starting with the jabbings for the devils mark.

Am I even further surprised that this is now extending into the Great Australian Firewall.

Perhaps those who cry loudest are those who look forlornly upon the promises of the bible, such as Ezekiel 23: 21 "whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions."

I mean who wouldn't want that or to be getting that?

I mean thank god Conroy is standing up for real Christian family values.

Jesus said in Revelation 2:22-23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

So Jesus wants to kill our kids - that's cool cause it is Jesus.

Timbo says I Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

So all the women ought to keep their traps shut. I mean it's in the bible - so it must be true right.

And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground; so the christians have got this family values stuff down pat: Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

So Conroy and his catholic buddies have got this right - we have to be protected against them out there on the internet and subjugate ourselves to the righteous christians showing us how their god loves us and how we ought to be kissing his ass, on the basis of their say so.

Oh did I mention that the old testament is a scammed copy of the Code of Hammurubi? The King of Babylons state laws - and the first 6 books of the bible are bare faced rip offs of this, just rebranded to a diety instead of the king?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf

Yep gotta remember them good old christian family values, the true word of god is the bible... except that getting nailed for copyright and plagarisim wasn't invented then.
Mordd
Dec 16, 2009 8:46 PM
How typical, they didnt test faster than 8mbp's connections and they didn't even test IPv6, are you kidding me?

At least the NBN will make access through things like TOR network a lot faster for us though, thats the only silver lining I can see there.

GetUp is running a campaign to raise awareness about the filter legislation and to utilise people power to try and stop the legislation from being passed. I would highly recommended everyone signup here:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

Then use GetUps tool to send an email alert to everyone you know to bring this to their attention. This is no longer just an issue for techies, activists or journalists, this is now an issue that every net user in Australia needs to be aware of!
Maxxi
Dec 17, 2009 10:41 AM
Why would Tabcorp care RDEFCON, blocking online gambling is a standard category in almost all web filters, and was a category in the NetAlert filters as well...
Maxxi
Dec 17, 2009 10:45 AM
Showing the average reader why he should not be too worried about a blacklist filter for ISPs Jahm?

With posts like this one, the broader Aussie public will feel more at ease knowing that there is a blacklist filter in the background.

The filter vendors thank you for your contribution to their business growth...

This quote is a real doozy:

"And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground"
Maxxi
Dec 17, 2009 10:55 AM
Mordd, that was a decision for the ISPs. They had the option in the EOI to test various options and parameters, including advanced internet technologies (IPv6) and higher speed connections.

So the first question is whether people were filtered in the trials at higher speeds or not, or whether that ws simply not documented.

We have ADSL2+ here @ 20Mbps, as will loads of iPrimus or Optus users, who were involved, so it is pretty ceratin that their connections were running at faster than 8Mbps during the trial as well.

A probale reason for the lack of IPv6 testing is a simple one: How many of the trial ISPs have operational IPv6 networks tunning, and howmany ISPs that have IPv6 took part in the trial.

If you wish to point a finger, then point it at the ISP community, it was their decision...

Enjoy using Tor, but Ibet you $500 right now that my filtered connection will be considerably faster and cheaper than your unfiltered Tor connection...

Wanna make that bet mate?? C'mon, be courageous, tell it like it is, have a a go... Backhauling to Tor servers is going to be so much fun going forward.

Unhindered internet access, excellent. BTW, what will Tor get you access to that you would otherwise not get access to?

Well I guess the US tv channel websites that censor Australian connections for a start...



Bazwalt
Dec 17, 2009 11:36 AM
Hmmm - It is pretty sad that IPv6 was not tested. That's a pretty big flop on their behalf.

But my question, is that - if the trial worked fine on 8mbit connections...why would performance be hampered on higher grade connections? If anything, wouldn't the impact be lesser felt on the higher grade services?

I'm a little confused - can someone with better networking insight shed some knowledge on this?
Maxxi
Dec 17, 2009 12:52 PM
Bazwalt, it is a technical conundrum called: " We will never never never never accept that this filter will work, and we just don't accept positive anything you say about it...! Not listening, ears shut, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..."

So now the faster speeds, that would usually support a higher network capacity, is now a problem. lol

I am now waiting for the protesters to claim that washing machines and toasters will stop working and planes will fall out of the sky due to the filter...

They have now convinced themselves that Australia is but a shadow of China (watch out for the tanks in the Sydney CBD), that Rudd secretly wears a swastika and anyone who has anything good to say about the filter must be technically devoid and an enemy of free speech...

They are all going to VPN to Tor and avoid having all their web connections blocked or filtered, which would slow then down.

VPN connections to Tor must be amazingly fast...

Some still rabbit on and regurgitate the same old arguments and singular incidents from the past, and have not noticed that the world has moved on without them...
jerjer
Dec 17, 2009 2:26 PM
Bazwalt,

The problem with not testing faster connections is that the filter system will have a finite amount of throughput (that is, it can only process so many pieces of data at a time). So (and I am just picking arbitrary numbers here) if we had two users on the testing system with 8Mbps connections and the max throughput of the filter was 20Mbps, they would not notice any slowdown because 8+8=16Mbps. However, if you now upgrade these two users to ADSL2+ (24Mbps) they now have a combined max throughput of 48Mbps. Hopefully you can see here that the connections will be bottlenecked by the 20Mbps limit enforced by the filter.

Technically you could build a filtering system that can process data at a faster rate than our international links, however it would *prohibitably* expensive (more than the funds they have currently allocated) and it would all go down the drain when a new international link is built.
Mordd
Dec 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Maxxi said: A probale reason for the lack of IPv6 testing is a simple one: How many of the trial ISPs have operational IPv6 networks tunning, and howmany ISPs that have IPv6 took part in the trial.

The government should have mandated these tests be done before proceeding with the legislation. You are wrong in saying I should blame the ISP's, I blame the government for going forward on the basis of selective testing designed to give them the results they wanted.

Maxxi said: Enjoy using Tor, but Ibet you $500 right now that my filtered connection will be considerably faster and cheaper than your unfiltered Tor connection...

Faster, yes im sure it will be, using proxy servers in an anonymous network slows down traffic, i am not denying that for one second. Cheaper? Maybe you don't understand how TOR works. I will still be on the same ADSL2+ type connection in on now, or in the future on a FTTH connection on the NBN, the cost of TOR software is free, the only extra cost is if I allow myself to act as a relay on the TOR network in higher bandwidth costs, if I have not used much bandwidth in a month though then letting other TOR users use up the rest of my paid for usage limit is fine with me though. Where does Cost come into the equation here though?

Maxxi said: Unhindered internet access, excellent. BTW, what will Tor get you access to that you would otherwise not get access to?

Well for example information on safe drug use would be blocked under the filter, as well as information relating to how to help someone on drugs. Say I have a family member with a drug problem and I want to research the substance and its effects to help the family member, well all that content would be mostly blocked on a filtered connection.

Maybe I just want to visit the Dentist in queensland who's website was blocked, or maybe I want to access a website of a protest organisation in Australia who gets blocked as the ACMA decides after a while that speaking out against our Government is also something that normal australians shouldn't be allowed to see.

Great review process by the way, the list itself is secret so its impossible to even know how it is being abused over time. Gay marriage is illegal in australia, I am definitely willing to bet websites about gay marriage would be blocked by the ACMA. The article recently posted here titled "Commentary: Why we don't need a filter" by Mark Newton goes into detail as to why RC content =/= illegal content, and the fact that a lot of legal content will be blocked by this.

You trying to suggest Maxxi that anyone wanting to evade the filter is wanting to access illegal content is naive and insulting in the extreme. When you pull your head out of your ass and are prepared to take a real look at the issue here, maybe you will see the fact that its not just illegal content they want to block and will be blocked.

We don't have a Games classification above MA15+, so any games rated R18+ overseas and refused classification here will also be blocked, as well any any sites associated with the game and the game servers.

Also im presuming here that you think that illegal content is as easy as going to www.childporn.com amirite? Fact is most illegal content thhat Conroy is claiming will be blocked is distributed by email, usenet, irc, IM, p2p, etc... all protocols the filter CANNOT and WILL NOT block unless they implement port blocking entire port ranges into the legislation as well, while currently there is nothing in the legislation to cover all these other communication types.
Mordd
Dec 17, 2009 3:57 PM
@ Bazwalt - as speds increase, the number of simultaneous requests ISP's will be handling will increase exponentially. The reason that the filering is more likely to affect us badly with faster access is that the trials show that when a high traffic site is requested if blocked, it can cause the entire filter to fail as a result and then all connections to that ISP would get blocked for a while until someone fixed it.

As the amount of content accessed online increases, so does the need for more server boxes acting as filters increase as well, meaning the costs grow over time and it becomes more likely the sheer amount of traffic will crash these fitler proxy servers regularly causing all traffic to be blocked.

Don't listen to Maxxi on the technical issues, he is most obviously not technically inclined that much, or chooses to deliberately obscure the technical issues behind this.
Maxxi
Dec 17, 2009 3:59 PM
Dear jerjer, modern BGP redirect based URL blacklist
filters are only limited by the BGP routers ability to process packets.

Which is it's capacity to function with or without filtering...

But an ISP may put the filter inline...

But what if the max throughput of the filter is then the typical telco filter installation level of, as an example, 16Gbps per appliance server, in a failover mode, with a typical gateway multiple gateway implementation, you can easily reach 40Gbps capacity.

Now ISPs and telcos do not need to have 8+8=16 formula, as they work on contention rates, averaged usage levels, throughput per sec per averaged user count rates etc.

So (8Mbps + 8Mbps) becomes a more accurate analysis when you calculate 25000 users @ 8Mbps, at peak, will only require a capacity far lower than 25000x8, being 200,000Mbps, or 200Gbps. (approx naturally)

So you have the example of a sub-continental telco with 9 million users and only 80Gbps of major gateway capacity.

With the BGP redirect based model, I have been able to read on these forums and on WP (lol, the fool who mentioned them there was flamed into yesterday just for mentioning it there...), can easily accomodate 16Gbps of gateway traffic with around $20K USD in hardware. That system apparently handled 300,000 blacklist lookups per server per second, with sub 1ms look-up times. (blacklist resides in memory)

Hardly prohibitive?

It is all about system capacities and look-up times.

Looking at ISP and telco networks, where major $$$ are spent on fast infrastructure, and assume that they will implement slow, inadequate filter systems when these will be permanent, is both technically and commercially naive.

Or disingenious. Or both...

Maxxi
Dec 18, 2009 9:37 AM
hmmmm Mordd, you have pretty extreme views and a real way with words... Let's look at a couple of facts and not just speculation.

I have not tried not have I ever suggested that all folks wanting to evade the filter are wanting to access illegal content. That is your statement Mordd.

I have the impression that you wish to be both insulted and considered naive, as that would give you reasons to be morally outraged, as you are in this posting...

"You trying to suggest Maxxi that anyone wanting to evade the filter is wanting to access illegal content is naive and insulting in the extreme. When you pull your head out of your ass and are prepared to take a real look at the issue here, maybe you will see the fact that its not just illegal content they want to block and will be blocked."

It is primarily, and to be found in thousands of posts by filter protesters, anti-filter protesters that continually tell us that the folks seeking illegal materials and content will easily circumvent the filter.

That they will seek to circumvent the filter.

Is this a fact or not? If this fact is not known to you, then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the ISP Filtering thread on WP, or simply open your own eyes and read the multitude of posts on this issue in these forums.

It has been stated thousands of times in these posts, that these people seeking illegal content will seek to circumvent.

However you Mordd, seem to be too focussed on finding a reason to get upset and outraged...

There are many different types of people in Australia Mordd, and not all are morally and ethically clean. Not everyone who seeks to evade an ISP filter are morally deficient or ethically bankrupt, but many are.

So how about you consider for a moment that the comment on reasons to evade the filter are differentiated, and not everyone does this for the same reason?

Try that one on for moment Mordd, before you make unfounded accusations...

The point was in all reality, unless you are wanting and trying to twist the meaning of the comments, that for many folks evading the filter with VPNs and proxy anons etc, the exercise will prove fruitless **because** they will never be addressing sites that are blacklisted.

It is pretty sad when someone is so desparate to find a point of attack, that they resort to twisting the meaning of a posters comments.

As for the example of safe drug use and a block: There are thousands of sites on safe drug use on the Net that have never been and will never be filtered by the proposed filter.

Are you now suggesting that ALL webpages on safe drug use are going to be filtered?

Give it a break Mordd...

And while we are getting down to facts and leaving speculation behind Mordd, perhaps you can tell us exactly what was blocked on the dentists site in QLD you mentioned.

His whole site, or just specific web pages?

URL, or whole domain?

Facts Mordd, are far more useful that assumptions and speculation.
Maxxi
Dec 18, 2009 9:54 AM
Mordd, please explain the difference between the trialled systems during the recent ISP trials, the UK based hybrid systems and the prevalent telco based URL blacklist filters?

We are both excited and expectant of your answers and technical prowess...

Then please explain the workings and technical methodology of a BGP redirect with URL blacklist filtering model, the non-proxied model of course.

Then avail us of your expertise on the difference between proxy and non-proxied models in these implementations?

Then we would highly appreciate your explanantions on whether,and if so, protocol inspection is useful in these models and why?

Next, what would be the typical look-up times,in milliseconds, for a telco grade URL filter, against a locally cached URL blacklist?

Next, how do they work?

And while you are demonstrating your technical prowess Mordd, how about you explain the difference between a BGP redirect model for blacklist URL filtering and TAP point outbound traffic mirroring or redirection to content filtering systems, and how trhey are differentiated form inline systems?

Next, and this is the corker Mordd, why not explain the advantages and disadvantages of each of these models and which filtering scenarios are best suite dby each of those technical models?

BTW: How many internet requests per second can a good telco grade blacklist filter handle per mid range server, say a quadcore, 2.6Ghz/4GB RAM, running a specialised blacklist filtering software?

Oh and finally, which of these models need to process the inbound traffic and which do not, and why is this of consequence?

Whoops, nearly forgot Mordd, which of these models are operationally affected and which are not affected by high traffic sites, and why is YouTube only a problem for some and not for others?

Thanks Mordd, awaiting your responses and with my best regards

Maxxi the Untechnical...
Sams
Dec 18, 2009 11:39 AM
"Maxxi the Untechnical... "

Maxxi the Googler
Digger11
Dec 18, 2009 2:03 PM
and hopefully the last post on this topic.

>99.99% of normal Aussies agree with getting rid of the crap off the Internet, the remainder post in this forum.

I think the post about Finland summed it all up - they either are unaware or plain just do not care about it.

SFCM999
Dec 18, 2009 3:52 PM
Hoping someone can help explain to me...

- The filter is being put in place to help keep us protected from all the nasty out there - I get that. Personally in all my years of internet use I have never stumbled over anything that I wasn't actively looking for....but anyway.

- The filter can be easily bypassed by people wanting to view this restricted content.

So...if people that aren't looking for the nasty out there don't see it and the people that do want to see it can easily bypass the system - why is the government spending 50+ million (and if we are being realistic how many government initiatives come in on budget...???) of our money on something that doesn't work?
Mordd
Dec 18, 2009 5:15 PM
Maxxi, maxxi, maxxi. Where do I even begin to respond to your comments. You are doing a great job of twisting the technical issues, so in some ways its kinda pointless me trying to argue against you when you obviously already know the issue so well lmao. Let me stick to 2 key points you raise:

1. Most content anti-filter activists are claiming will be blocked won't actually be blocked. Okay lets go of the blacklist which was leaked to wikileaks then, as well as the "updated" version of the list leaked there after the first list was cleaned up.

Am i willing to bet all information on things like safe drug use will be blocked under the filter? You bet I am, epecially when you have the Christian and other lobby groups demanding exactly that, and this is something that can and will be blocked under the legislation. Conroy has clearly stated information on drug use will be bannned, wether thats in a game or real information on the internet.

2. As for the Dentists website - well I thought this story was well enough know from the wikileaks incident that I wouldn't have to educate you, but here goes:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dentists-website-on-leaked-blacklist-20090319-93cl.html

Quote: The communications regulator's secret blacklist of banned websites has been leaked onto the web and includes such innocent sites as a dentist and tuckshop consultant.

....

Alongside child porn, bestiality, rape and extreme violence sites, the list includes a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, porn sites, Wikipedia entries, sites on euthanasia, fringe religions, fetishes, Christianity, the website of a tour operator and even a dentist.

The dentist, Queenslander John Golbrani, was furious when contacted to inform him that his site appeared on the blacklist.

"A Russian company broke into our website a couple of years back and they were putting pornographic listings on there - [but] we changed across to a different web provider and we haven't had that problem since," he said.

Jocelyn Ashcroft, who runs a school canteen consultancy in Queensland, also said she had no idea why her site had made it on to the list. "The only thing I can think of is that I have emailed schools telling them about my book and CD resource How To Have A Healthy And Profitable Theme Day," she said.

"There is no software involved in this process, just me copy and pasting."

Daniel Purser, who runs a web hosting and design company out of NSW, was also shocked to learn that his site had been blacklisted. He said there was "no chance" his customers were hosting questionable content.


Of course the government and the ACMA deny that list was a copy of the blacklist, which was later proven false, ie: it was proven to be the exact copy of the blacklist at the point it was leaked to wikileaks.

If this isn't enough reason for people to be concerned about legitimate sites being blocked with no oversight as the blacklist itself will be secret and possessing the blacklist will be illegal in and of itself, then I don't know what is enough reason to be concerned. History shows that the erosion of civil liberties and freedoms always leads to corruption and the abuse of power sooner or later. We have plently examples of federal and state laws in this country being used to selectively target certain groups in our society, be they indigenous, young people, protestors, or people interested in information on safe drug use, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc etc..... I have no faith that the blacklist will never contain sites that legitimately should never be blocked, and you have not given a single reason Maxxi to show why this won't be the case either.

Refused Classification IS NOT illegal content by definition. Introduce a R18+ and X18+ for ALL media, such as games and not just films, and MAYBE we can START to correct this problem, but thats still only the tip of the iceburg. FACT: Even the non-australian websites for Left for Dead 2 will be blocked under this legislation because the overseas version of the game is RC here, and the version approved here is a massively cut down version that is different from what everyone else in the world can choose to buy and play. 1 version for the world, another version for australia, and I thought we lived in a first world democrary here, the comparisons with the great firewall of china are being made even by overseas media because the parralels are pretty much the same.

Say NO to the Great Internet Barrier Wreath - the death of internet freedoms in Australia!
Slatts
Dec 19, 2009 8:36 PM
SFCM999 wrote:
Hoping someone can help explain to me...

- The filter is being put in place to help keep us protected from all the nasty out there - I get that. Personally in all my years of internet use I have never stumbled over anything that I wasn't actively looking for....but anyway.

- The filter can be easily bypassed by people wanting to view this restricted content.

So...if people that aren't looking for the nasty out there don't see it and the people that do want to see it can easily bypass the system - why is the government spending 50+ million (and if we are being realistic how many government initiatives come in on budget...???) of our money on something that doesn't work?


Because the Labour party is lead be a god botherer. (Of course the opposition is as well at the moment)

Because the Labour party wanted the votes of the christian right and the internet illiterate masses that watch the horror stories on 60 minutes.

Because self-righteous politicians think that they need to be seen to be doing something in order to justify their existence.

Doesn't matter if it works or not so long as the ignorant unwashed masses believe it does something.
Maxxi
Dec 20, 2009 8:32 PM
@Sams: Sorry to disappoint you mate, but I did not Google a single iota of it...

I had to review two RFP responses recently for ISPs, validate the business cases and get engineering responses on the technology models...

All in there Sams, telcos and ISPs in various countries are using this stuff and many ISPs here are reviewing the models.

Wish I was earning some commission on it... pity.

But I can tell you from the case studies (validated), that the technology works beyond 16Gbps per telco gateway already, with just two medium sized quadcore servers doing the blacklist lookups...

High traffic, and I mean really high traffic sites did not even bring these boxes into a sweat. (Google, Yahoo, YouTube etc) Way above the stuff tested by the ISPs here recently.

I kid you not Sams, and I am not pulling your leg. Our group is looking into investing in the technology and potentially setting up a cloud services entity once the requirements are matured...

As for the whole filtering plans? Well good question, have to see what the legislation is and if they actually what is proposed with ACB oversight...
Maxxi
Dec 20, 2009 8:39 PM
Hi Mordd, you could begin by answering all the questions I posted.

Actual answers with specific facts would be OK. Validated answers would be best, links to media stories that assume what has happened is hardly a real response Mordd...?

I appreciate you trying to educate me, however I would be best served there if you could describe the difference between past practices and future processes with ACB oversight?

Thanks and looking forward to your answers to my questions.

Maxxi the Untechnical
Maxxi
Dec 20, 2009 8:47 PM
BTW Sams, technology investment group I do some work for and with, have been active in the ISP and related technologies space since 1995...

We try and pinpoint new technology requirements in the regional market,and invest in setting up or supporting entities is this field.

We do not lobby anyone to make these things happen, but when they do...

Me, well I get passionate (never noticed..?) about most things internet related and spend too much time posting commenst that get too long...

What does irk me is when folks just clearly go over the edge with doomsday speculation, assumptions of the evil intentions of others (but not themselves... hmmmm), and doubts about the integrity of Australia as a nation that practices democracy.

Some folks claim to represent the majority with their views, the reality is that the majority voted for the current gov, and as imperfect as they are, that is why they are there and can pass or attempt to pass laws.

Cheers

Maxxi
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Windows 8: Under the hood
Part One of iTnews' enterprise guide to Windows 8.
 
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  87%
 
No
  13%
TOTAL VOTES: 106

Vote