(26-07-2014 20:28 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]But as Talktalk's experience demonstrates, many of those who actively choose to disable the filters still enable them in the longer run.
Absolutely. I glanced through the report quickly, and there was one ISP in particular, Virgin I think, that showed a greater take up from existing customers than from the new sign-ups. But the report doesn't specifically address this area, so there are no clear figures for all the ISP's yet.
What also won't be shown so far, is how many of those that enable filters, subsequently go back and disable them again as they get frustrated at finding websites blocked etc. Virgin's current offering seems particularly poor, depsite being the last to be implemented, with no customisation options avaliable, it's an all or nothing approach, which could quickly piss users off and be disabled again as a result.
Cameron's real master plan was to impose filtering on the web across the UK. That had to be watered down into this optional approach, and only thus far applied by the 'bigger' ISP's. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether future reports paint a different picture, but for me, these figures seem to show that so far it has been less than successful. The figures from talktalk are radically different from everyone else, it remains to be seen if the other ISP's can match that over time, or if that is some sort of anomally, but that alone will give the filter supporters some hope.
(25-07-2014 13:11 )tony confederate Wrote: [ -> ]But do we know how many new broadband customers have young children anyway? Because without knowing that how can we assess whether the take up is poor or not?
BT said about 20-25% of its customer base has children "of a relevant age".
(27-07-2014 10:44 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]What also won't be shown so far, is how many of those that enable filters, subsequently go back and disable them again as they get frustrated at finding websites blocked etc. Virgin's current offering seems particularly poor, depsite being the last to be implemented, with no customisation options avaliable, it's an all or nothing approach, which could quickly piss users off and be disabled again as a result.
Good point munch. It would be a big step forward if these filters allowed the whitelisting of specific sites to avoid things being blocked that the user feels are OK (Talktalk allow blacklisting, in case the filter misses something that the user feels should be blocked). Based on what you say about Virgin, if they continue with their system in that form I feel they have no chance of matching Talktalk's take up.
Would it be fair to assume Virgin have their own agenda regarding the filters because of their involvement with record producing etc.
So it's actually aimed at Torrent sites to help combat piracy of their own material, perhaps that explains the on/off type approach?
(27-07-2014 18:02 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ]Would it be fair to assume Virgin have their own agenda regarding the filters because of their involvement with record producing etc.
I'm not sure that the record company is anything to do with the ISP even though they bear the same name. I believe Branson sold the record side of the business some years ago and has no more involvement with it.
nah branson sold virgin music ages ago (1992) to EMI used the money to set up Virgin Trains i think
(27-07-2014 18:02 )Bandwagon Wrote: [ -> ]Would it be fair to assume Virgin have their own agenda regarding the filters because of their involvement with record producing etc.
So it's actually aimed at Torrent sites to help combat piracy of their own material, perhaps that explains the on/off type approach?
My take is that Virgin, like other ISPs, are privately funming at Camerons inept scheme being forced on them and have taken the dumb insolence route. Thats where someone does as ordered, no more, and without intelligence. Its almost impossible to punish someone for following orders.
Make it plain just how crap bog standard filters are.
Should ISPs offer discreet filtering by category? Put it the other way, if The Government has decided that loads of content is unsuitable, gambling, violence, selfharm, drug taking, who are mere parents, some of whom drink, to decide to let their kids access the stuff?
As for whitelisting specific sites, forget it. To aviod loopholes the filters must work at the ISP end, either some local junction box or head office.A big computer system is required to introduce conditional access of websites. The more complex the filtering the more expensive the computer kit required. The ISP would also need to licence filtering software for several million customers. Even with a bulk discount serious money is required for software. Keeping the whole thing simple can reduce the cost drastically. Make it complex with not 20 categories but different lists of websites for every customer and the cost rockets.
(28-07-2014 22:18 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]As for whitelisting specific sites, forget it. To aviod loopholes the filters must work at the ISP end, either some local junction box or head office.A big computer system is required to introduce conditional access of websites. The more complex the filtering the more expensive the computer kit required. The ISP would also need to licence filtering software for several million customers. Even with a bulk discount serious money is required for software. Keeping the whole thing simple can reduce the cost drastically. Make it complex with not 20 categories but different lists of websites for every customer and the cost rockets.
On the contrary, I've just checked my Talktalk account and I find that it does allow whitelisting.
For example, I can choose to block adult sites which disallows access to this forum, but by whitelisting this site I can allow access to this forum without allowing access to any other adult sites.
So whitelisting does exist and it does work.
(28-07-2014 22:18 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]My take is that Virgin, like other ISPs, are privately funming at Camerons inept scheme being forced on them and have taken the dumb insolence route. Thats where someone does as ordered, no more, and without intelligence.
This doesn't appear to be correct, because the information posted here about Virgin's parental control system appears to be out of date. Going by Virgin's own website, they appear to now have a fully featured system that can be tailored to suit the individual parent's requirements.
http://www.virgin.net/customers/pcguard/...ntrol.html
I'm not a Virgin customer myself. I'm just going by what it states about their parental controls on the above link.
(29-07-2014 12:36 )elgar1uk Wrote: [ -> ]This doesn't appear to be correct, because the information posted here about Virgin's parental control system appears to be out of date. Going by Virgin's own website, they appear to now have a fully featured system that can be tailored to suit the individual parent's requirements.
I'm not a Virgin customer either, but I'm pretty sure that is NOT the standard 'porn filter' there.
It appears to be some sort of hybrid thing with a pc based component linked to the Virgin database backend. It also appears to be an old thing, if you look, it has a 'system requirements' section, which states it is only compatible with Windows (vista, xp and 2000), and certain browsers and email clients, which are all way out of date.
The porn filters are an ISP level thing only, which should then be applied to ALL connections on all pc's tablets or mobiles on the connection regardless of OS.