recent decision by MNHQ

[NetworkGuy]

Please, MNHQ, do have a read of this thread and consult your Tech people so they can give you the answers as to whether your support for this campaign and the Minister's plans are worth going on with.

I would hope you not only reverse your position but assuming you get sufficient technical reasoning in 'Plain English', that you go public and explain how unworkable the proposal is likely to be. I feel sure journalists at Computer Weekly and Computing will be able to provide confirmation that filtering is a hiding to nothing and can be very costly because of the millions of GB of data flowing through the bigger ISP networks.

For anyone baffled, and wondering if I'm a nut case, this concerns a proposal to get ISPs to "filter out" all porn, unless a customer "opts in". For numerous technical reasons the idea is never likely to achieve filtering without blocking access to legitimate sites or not blocking access to better than say 95% reliable, thus making it a costly exercise in futility, while parental vigilance and filtering software at the home would still be essential for peace of mind.

(Incidentally the wording of the campaign page implies the parents need to ask, at the same time as someone wanting not to have censored content needs to ask - it is one or other, but not both that would need to contact ISP. )

[NetworkGuy]

Sorry - meant to make that a LINK to The Register piece mentioning JR (Justine :) )

[RebeccaMumsnet]

Hi NetworkGuy,

Justine posted on a thread about this yesterday, here it is.

Best
MNHQ

[NetworkGuy]

Thanks for the link. Saw one in Geeky Stuff, but of course this was related to the issue. Will have a look at the 'In the News' one now.

[NetworkGuy]

Channel 4 has just started series 5 of the Sex Education Show, this time from Redborne School, with a piece about what teens have seen which rather shocks the parents.

Good to see the show pushed parents as needing to discuss porn and getting more aware of parental controls and moving computers out of bedrooms.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Has your obession with internet porn and the banning of same started hairs growing on the palms of your hands yet?

[NetworkGuy]

While some have views that ISP-based filtering is still a 'solution', the point is that it's a flawed solution, for a number of reasons, not just the technical ones of how easily overcome the filters might be.

To remind parents and encourage them of their options for limiting access seems a better method, but has not been taken on board by Government, so far, insofar as they would need to make policy and (fund) the schools passing on details to parents.

[Tee2072]

Snerk SGB.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Censorship is a Bad THing. Censorship of the Internet is always going to remaim pretty much technically impossible. That's a Good Thing.

[NetworkGuy]

Completely agree. Puzzled by your suggestion of banning earlier, since that's not what I'd favour. I know some profess a wish to ban completely (which is unrealistic) but unfortunately I don't recall which thread it was.

[NetworkGuy]

Update (from my N80 phone) - UK Parliament have agreed to hold an inquiry on website blocking to report in November this year. More details (weblink) later.

'You know who' MP will be chairing this, so nil technical knowledge at helm!

[NetworkGuy]

ISPreview - *> LINK

[ChippingIn]

NetworkGuy - I think you are doing a good job to try to get the message out as to why this is A Bad Thing. It does, at first, appear to be a good thing - and people need it explained to them why it isn't. We need to do more don't we before it goes ahead regardless.

[prettybird]

If only the government were more concerned about the porn that is now transmitted nightly to our TVs. I know it is on late at night - but what if a child gets up during the night and goes and channel hops? (or, as my ds will be doing during the RWC, gets up deliberately during the night in order to watch some of the games).

Yes, you can block the channels but a) how many of us really realise that they are there and b) every time you have to retune (which has been frequently recently) you have to go back and re-block all those channels.

[NetworkGuy]

With Freeview at least you should be able to not just "block" (with parental control PIN) but can even delete channels.

ChippingIn - I think the tone of the ISPreview article :
[1] need parents to not get false sense of security if ISP blocking is done,
[2] some sensible ideas like having computers in shared area not bedrooms,
[3] need parents to educate as to technology, not have teens run rings around them
are sensible and balanced. Shame that the MP involved has a particular agenda and can but hope that Mumsnet is allowed to have a voice, and not drowned out by pro-filtering "lobby"... Some ISPs seem to give it a go, but most likely understand shortcomings and won't voice problems (eg TalkTalk, which will have its own commercial interests at heart and might say filtering is fine and best thing since sliced bread, and any ISP which says different could be treated with contempt by the MP and lobby in favour of filtering, as they [lobby] won't accept that filtering will be a bad thing overall (slows traffic, adds hardware and costs no doubt to be shouldered by all customers, even though it is unlikely to be effective, and worse, imposed on everyone).

I have not yet read the Ofcom findings. I am glad they made their position one of being against the attempts to filter (on being impractical, as far as I recall from the headlines), and of course some ISPs have in the past been critical of ideas where website blocking is imposed (for attempts to stop piracy of music/video, but in part because it forces the ISP to act as investigator, prosecutor and judge of a customer, something the ISP knows will make it unpopular, especially if the costs for doing so have to be passed to the [unwilling] customer who then feels all their internet use is logged and their privacy invaded - must double check the arguments made by BT and TalkTalk against website blocking concerning intellectual property).

[not at home, so unlikely to comment more today]

[prettybird]

Networkguy - you probably can but every time you re-tune (which we get invited to do frequently at the moment as "new digital services have been found") - all pprevious settings get deleted so you need to go back thorugh and do it all again.

[NetworkGuy]

Agreed you need to do it again, but for 'peace of mind' that someone doesn't flip to 'BabeStation' or whatever, trash, at 3am, it isn't that hard and it does not take more than 2 minutes to choose which channels to delete.

How often do you need to scan for channels ? Should be less than once every 3-4 months even if there is a lot of transmitter work going on in your TV area.

[prettybird]

We've been having to do it almost weekly recently. I thought it would stop after run up to the digital switchover (when we were being told asked if we wanted to retune to get the new digital services found almost on a daily basis).

If we don't do it, every time we switch on the TV we get have to over-ride the request.

The more important point is - how many parents even realise that there are a number of smutty channels freely available on Freeview? Late night viewing and children shouldn't be up then - but they might still prefer to block them.

Agree with you BTW about the impracticality of the proposals and the fact that they are the thin edge of the wedge. Worked in telecoms until recently (company owned one of the ISPs) so know the hassle involved.

[NetworkGuy]

re weekly updates... do you leave box on all the time (as recommended) ?

I have had one (Thomson, I think) box demand to search for updates (but of the operating software, not channels) each time it was powered up, and replaced it with a (cheap) box from local British Heart Foundation (some do electrical goods and furniture).

Understand the nuisance a bit more now, if you're getting such updates so often. Have you actually lost any channels in the switch?

Can your freeview box handle manual tune as well as auto tune ?

Only ask because lots of info online about which channels are in which 'multiplex' group, so if you lose, say, Film4, it should be possible to update just for that multiplex (and get Film4 back) and have added only a fraction of the full set of unwanted channels (if one or more happens to be carried in same multiplex group as Film4, IYSWIM).

Other option is go the whole hog and get FreeSat so once you have list of channels you don't have the 'digital switchover' messing you about .. OK, frivolous idea, costly too, but one way to avoid this weekly hassle!

[spiderslegs]

Network

Are you my husband??

Are you a developer?

We have no TV (me not him).

He's an architect/lead, but we have NO technology in the house other than a PC.

I agree.

[prettybird]

No Freeview box- we have an Panasonic IDTV, so not cheap. Not left on all the time - I refuse to leave a TV on standby - so depends who the last person was watching before we go to bed.

We use a portable digital arial - before the switchover the roof arial couldn't get all the multiplexes and although we've checked since the switchover (which took place in June in our area), the gales must have shifted the arial as it no longer gets good reception (even BBC1 reception is poor, which it wasn't before).

At some point we'll get the roof arial sorted/changed but at the moment it is not high on my list of priorities.

[NetworkGuy]

OK. I know some standalone (aka set-top) boxes go into the 'scan' mode every time they are turned on. I am not familiar with newer TVs where there is Freeview built in (and apologies, would not suggest a replacement box if I had known yours was a costly Panasonic).

digitaluk.co.uk has a detailed guide (if you tick the 'aerial trade' box) about the multiplexes and future changes. Sorting out the roof aerial may make a world of difference, but if you've had signals OK from a portable aerial, I assume you are fairly close to a transmitter.

Quite understand about not wanting to leave a TV on standby, though these days I suspect the power consumption is under 5 watts per hour. My external floodlight uses 3 W (45 LEDs) and I have it on a timer switch so it is on for 7 hours at a time, clearly not something I'd do if it was using 300 W or 500 W or more (!)

[prettybird]

Technically, our switchover is complete - which is why it is annoying still getting these messages.

We're not that close to the transmitter (about 15-20 miles away) but it's Blackhill which is a powerful one, covering most of central Scotland. (I used to know its post code off by heart as I provided its fibre/telecoms links) I wave at it every time I go past on the M8.

I've found this site better/easier for getting up-to-date info about problems.

[NetworkGuy]

Back to the topic, it seems there is renewed interest in attempting to filter what the ISPs can send to a customer's connection.

I posted a link or two the other day on *> this thread The Guardian

[NetworkGuy]

Another bit of feedback to the Government :-

*> Web Filtering Firm Smoothwall Warns UK Not to Force Net Censorship on ISPs this

[NetworkGuy]

I know this is an old thread, but just recently spotted that OpenDNS offers their "FamilyShield" free for personal (Family!) use. See their web page... *> www.opendns.com/home-solutions/parental-controls/