[AusNOG] ISP's are the new media. We dont need TV to get the message out.

[Sean K. Finn]

 It's the same now except we control the new media.

That's crazy talk.  We don't control the new media any more than Australia
Post controls newspapers and magazines.

Whoa there big fella, collectively we do.

 It's the digital equivalent of collectively controlling 99% of the paper-presses in days gone by, and all of the corner street urchins selling your papers for you.

And since Australia Post handles the distribution network, it has access to every post box in Australia to add an extra leaflet or two in their normal rounds.

Don't think it doesn't already happen, because that's where I got the crazy idea from in the first place.

The postal service provides an international communication platform
which is used by virtually every individual to for personal purposes and
by virtually every business to enable commerce.  It has its own set of
protocols, economic issues, cross-jurisdictional issues, and so on.  Over
time systems of regulation and understanding have coalesced so that
the postal service can do what it does with a minimum of interference.

ISPs provide an international communication platform which is used by
virtually every Australian for personal purposes and by virtually every
Australian business to enable commerce.  It has its own set of protocols,
economic issues, cross-jurisdictional issues, and so on. It has NOT matured
into a normal part of our regulatory landscape precisely because there
are so many people trying to portray it as something it ain't -- particularly
"new media"

It is definitely an intrinsic part of whatever came after print on paper. Would you prefer to hand around CD's with web pages on them?
Call it whatever you like.

When the Minister talks about his distrust for "internet companies", he's
referring to companies like facebook and google.  He lacks the knowledge
(and the desire to acquire knowledge) necessary to understand that
ISPs are like the postal service and Facebook is like a newsletter that
just happens to be sent via post.

I don't think he lacks the knowledge at all, I think he doesn't care.

As long as he continues to lack that understanding, he'll continue to
make stupid decisions and say stupid things.

Or deliberate actions. Stupidity only gets you so far in life.

In particular:  One never talks about censoring Australia Post to get
rid of "unwanted" postal content, one instead focuses one's energy
on the publishers and distributors of the content who just happen to
use the postal service as an incidental part of their distribution strategy.

The government owns Australia Post.

They use sniffer dogs all the time, Customs services on international borders inspecting random bags, hell they can even X-Ray entire containers.

It's already being censored, just not inernally.

Just like you wouldn't censor peer to peer traffic at every pop, which is essentially what Australia post is, but only at the border between National and International (Ingress/Egress points, International transit).

We know he'll never want to acquire that understanding, so we need
to focus our efforts on his parliamentary colleagues and cut him out
of the loop -- If he doesn't want to be part of the picture then he's simply
irrelevant and we shouldn't waste our time with him.

I agree.

That's why lobbying MPs -- even ALP MPs -- is so important.  Our elected
officials would look like dolts if they couldn't tell the difference between
a  magazine and a post office.  For the ISP industry to have any rational
future, those same officials must feel equally foolish if they can't tell
the difference between the Internet and a website.

I agree.

The trouble is as the Communications Minister it's pretty obvious that it's his job to brief the PM and anyone else who doesn't have a clue, which means he swings it to his agenda.

Gov't needs support of a small minority in another party to help get other things through, so they can't let this one get through.

Perhaps we should concentrate on ousting the independants or minor party members that Labour is relying on for their small but deciding vote in parliament / senate and shift the balance of power.

(If the upcoming election doesn't do that).

Labour is non-committal on the filter at the momement because to drop that policy would be to remove support from non-labour non-liberal fanatics in a power broking deal, that they are probably silently waiting to go away, and could cost them the next election.

They can't about face now because to do so would mean dropping any futher support from the other fringe parties who want this.

Silently I think after the election the shift in power will make it go away.

I bet a can of coke on it.

S

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100709/f6e8e7f8/attachment.html>