Conroy can still regulate the internet

By Ry Crozier on Feb 20, 2010 6:37 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Just not IPTV content, minister says.

Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy has played down comments made on ABC radio that it wasn’t possible to regulate the internet, saying the comment did not apply to content types other than internet television.

Senator Conroy (pictured) made the remarks on the ABC’s breakfast radio program early yesterday.

By the afternoon, a snippet of the interview was posted on YouTube and his comments turned into posters circulating the internet.

“Internet television is available now on some subscription basis from telecommunications companies, and as the national broadband network rolls out over the next two years this level of competition is going to put massively put pressure on the commercial TV [networks] because of the cost model involved,” Conroy said.

“These competitors – you can’t regulate the internet – in terms of local content – these competitors will be pouring overseas content into Australian TV rooms.

“And if you want to maintain a viable, successful, local production, local Australian stories, we need to look at what’s happening worldwide.”

When contacted by iTnews, Conroy's office said his suggestion that the internet couldn’t be regulated for one content type did not preclude regulation of others.

“The Government cannot impose Australian content quotas on internationally hosted Internet Protocol Television services (IPTV),” a spokesman for the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said.

“However, we can block identified URLs leading to Refused Classification (RC) content coming into Australia at the ISP level.”

The spokesman said it was “important that the comment was heard in the context of the full interview".

“The transcript makes it clear that the minister was discussing Australian content levels and not internet regulation generally,” the spokesman said.

12 comments in this discussion

"Conboy is a poor man? Poor example of a human being perhaps, but little of his performance so far suggests there is anything "brightish" about the anti-Net luddite grub. It seems Kruddman and ..."

By anonymous

Tags

internet, regulation, abc, radio, iptv, refused, classification, url, filter, conroy, copyright

US six-strikes anti-filesharing system kicks in

ACMA plots amateur radio band harvest for LTE

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

U.S. clears way for wider in-flight Internet

Breaking Stories

Department of Sustainability goes BYOD

Perpetual scraps CIO role

Telstra breaks up IT in latest restructure

NBN Co buys TransACT fibre network

SAP to recruit people with autism as programmers

Comments: 12

marknewton Feb 20, 2010 4:01 PM	I'm sorry, what did he say? This "clarification" is almost the dumbest thing the Minister has said about the Internet so far. If we're to believe him now, you can't regulate TV on the Internet, even though you can regulate TV offline... but while you can't regulate online TV, you can regulate other types of content. What a bizarre thing to say. By that logic pedophiles could start an online TV station and he'd have nothing to say about it. Minister, please: get some advice. Seriously. This is embarrassing to watch.
marknewton Feb 20, 2010 4:21 PM	Oh, and while we're at it: Even though you can't regulate TV on the Internet, THE MINISTER'S OWN DEPARTMENT administers the Broadcasting Services Act, which regulates TV stations, AND THE FRIGGIN' INTERNET. C'mon, Minister, admit it: You've given up. You've just phoning it in now, right?
anonymous Feb 20, 2010 6:55 PM	Unfortunately Ruddman and Conboy haven't given up at all, despite serial gaffes from both of them in this area. They still figure they can milk some votes from the unknowing for saving all the children, while setting up a neat system of secret government censorship for their future use to ban opposing points of view.
Stuart Feb 20, 2010 8:00 PM	So you can regulate the internet, just as long as it's not internet television. Or anything other than the web (e.g. bittorrent). Or a high traffic site like YouTube. Or if the url contains a question mark. Or if the content is even remotely dynamic. Or if you care to spend the five minutes it takes to discover how to bypass it. What happened to the same rules for the internet and other media, Senator? We know you THINK you can regulate the internet, because you're trying to do it for unwanted, prohibited or RC content (or whatever it is this month). Why the change of heart?
al Feb 22, 2010 3:09 AM	I think it's more likely Conroy is ushering in a 2 tier internet, using a false flag or astroturfing technique. He and the rest of the censorship crew bleat about the evils of refused classification material, from child porn to small breasted adults, but I think they realy want to implement an internet that allows for the delivery of content ( porn or sport ) that is bought and paid for by subscribers to Cable tv or the soon to come IP TV models. f this is the case, it is in someone's best intersts ( Cable TV, IP TV ) to block an inevitably growing list of URL's of Refused Classification material because you dont want that choice ( HTTP )to be a viable alternative. Cable TV will more than likely offer, if it does not already, Adult movie packages. If you can't regulate overseas content on IP TV then maybe they will offer a similar adult movie subscription service. I hope it is clear that the issue of censoring the bad stuff is really about setting up a delivery model that is secure and monetized for the interested parties - those being the incoming IP TV and Cable TV that only has 30% market share. If it's too much hasssle for the technically challenged and /or apahtetic Australian to get porn on the HTTP, they will turn to Cable or IP TV for their rude stuff. Market share for Cable will climb and take up of IP TV is sure to be significant too, especially if they can cater to the "Adults".
EMwyres Feb 22, 2010 9:26 AM	Minister - I'm the one who posted your soundbite on the internet. It was originally posted here: http://michaelwyres.com/2010/02/stephen-conroy-you-cant-regulate-the-internet/ I actually SPECIFICALLY alerted that your comment was made in the context of IPTV. But the question I asked was why do you think you cannot regulate IPTV, but can regulate other internet traffic? As per usual, you've twisted it all to suit your agenda, rather than doing the responsible thing and LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. URLs are URLs. Whether they are IPTV or anything else. You know full well you can't block anything, yet you just want to score cheap political points with the majority of the Australian public, who don't understand.
RDEFCON1 Feb 22, 2010 4:16 PM	Give it up Conboy. Why don't you spend our tax money on something productive? Perhaps the health system? or improving public transport outcomes? I'm tired of Labor Governments who blow their budgets on useless and counterproductive policies with no economic up-side, while burying us in debt which will take decades to pay off.
hsvandrew Feb 22, 2010 10:29 PM	The point being missed here is that the Internet remains the one free medium on which all views can be expressed freely and we need to FIGHT to keep it that way. The filter is being presented as essential and if you are against it you must want to download child porn. What people need to realise is governments control the information we are allowed to see and hear through TV, Newspapers etc and only the "hit stories" of the day can make it into these mediums. Notice how quickly Stephen Conroy himself moved to block a web site containing negative comments about himself - no child porn, no porn at all. Am I missing something or do parents think the internet filter will "block porn" and this is why people keep saying it will make our kids safe? Because although a few children in Australia may be affected by child porn sites, I'd suggest there wouldn't be many and those that are won't stop being hurt because of an internet filter. If parents think the filter is going to block most porn this isn't the case so your kids will still be able to Google up naked pics, porn videos etc. These important facts need to start getting out into the public arena. What will be able to be filtered is comments calling Stephen Conroy (or the government of the day) the most ill-informed, unknowledgeable, communist minister ever seen. Voted worst ITC minister ever by Whirlpool users well done sir!
netizen Feb 25, 2010 11:29 AM	Australia’s such a great place and you have our nation’s best interest at heart that you haven’t taken the time to surrender you UK citizenship. I mean all I want to do is watch and read what everyone else does regardless of your views
Private Citizen Mar 2, 2010 10:57 PM	Think darker - the key phrase is “However, we can block identified URLs leading to Refused Classification (RC) content coming into Australia at the ISP level.” When the filter trial results came back it was obvious. Filtering was going to start performance issues once the list got above 10000 URLs. Conroy persisted - his most reported quality - persisting. 10000 URLs was enough to proceed. Odd in an environment that generate millions of URL weekly. Maybe he is relying on Moore's Law, maybe he only needs 10000 for his term in office. Maybe the number is irrelevant. For his goals, he just needs a filter. Consider this fiction. Few years later, the filter was passed and KRudd '10 got re-elected but is losing traction. He is arriving to address the annual ALP conference All the govt managed filter servers, located in ISP across the nation, receive an updated list. The replacement list is smaller than usual. Only 500 URLs or so. Instantly all of the nation's ip gateway addresses are blocked. ISPs cannot talk to each other, let alone the world. The internet are all of its services are effectively dead. Spectators get to see a bizarre sight men in suits walking up to labor MPs across the nation and assassinating them. but they twitter or upload their footage. Later reports will announce explosions and gunfire at the conference. Traditional media reports simultaneous terrorist attacks. Journalists,paralysed by the collapse of their technology, struggle to get reports. A "home grown terror group" has performed simultaneous attacks. The executive and major power brokers have been killed. Many are missing presumed dead in the chaos. Curiously few witnesses. No twitter. No youtube. The highest ranking member of the govt remaining happens to be the deputy leader of the senate, now becomes Acting Prime Minister. Poster boy for all right thinking Australians, the man who moderated the internet. A Shocked nation turns to him for guidance. Their hearts burning with the desire for vengeance. He vows to attack home grown terrorism and the cultures that "foster" it. The community burns downs mosques. He promises to restore the internet, with restrictions to slow the home grown terror threat. The boxes within ISPs get snooping programs. Dissenters are highlighted and are secretly detained using Howard era terror laws. Those detained forbidden by law to mention their detention under threat of prison. Expel a BBC journalist or two and the traditional media will tow the line. Ok - far fetched, I know. Ask yourself something why is it that all of the communication ministers seem to be intent in restricting communications rather than fostering it. Because the communication minister is responsible for ensuring that the communication industry and media _understand_ the governments position. That use to be done with threats of media concentration reviews and more recently TV licence rebates. The internet is largely outside the control of the minister. It does not respond to threats or bribes. ACMA and the OFLC are increasingly redundant in a world where Australians get their media raw from any source on the globe. What is they use to say? "pleasant dreams"
ian_mackintosh_ Mar 4, 2010 2:44 PM	Well Private Citizen, the post above is a little far fetched for my tastes. My view, don't look for conspiracies when good old fashioned incompetence can explain everything. Obviously the Minister for Communications has an aspect of his ministry focussed on control and one focussed on fostering open and accessible communications. Fair enough, and not a lot of difference here compared to other comms ministers in western countries in recent times. Thing is, people have been talking about the revolutionary freedoms the internet will bring to information and content distribution for 15 years or more. What we are now seeing is that process taking place, enabled by a faster network (paid for largely by the consumers). It's damn scary if you are Rupert Murdoch et al because the assets making money right now aren't in the traditional media oligopolies. That they didn't see this coming was breath taking. The policy mix Conroy is pushing is insane though. I agree with pretty much of the comments so far. I personally think he is a brightish politician surrounded by really stupid advisors, both in the ALP and his Department. On one hand they're fostering the NBN (a goodish policy with a whiff of pork barrel about it) and on the other they are trying to bring centralised regulation to that same medium they propose to expand. But the internet was designed from the outset not to need such centralisation. What Conroy needs is other suggestions to pitch before the election. I'd encourage everyone to write to him and suggest alternatives. I've put mine up at the link below and written to the poor man. I know folk want to see him fail, but policy failure in this space is no good for anyone. Citizen or Business. http://ianmackintosh.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-we-please-discuss-options-for.html
anonymous Mar 4, 2010 5:44 PM	Conboy is a poor man? Poor example of a human being perhaps, but little of his performance so far suggests there is anything "brightish" about the anti-Net luddite grub. It seems Kruddman and Conboy figure they can pick up some votes from the uninformed while imposing a really neat secret censorship scheme for future use to secretly block opposing points of view.