Adult content blocks on mobile ISPs
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Sat Mar 5 15:06:47 GMT 2011
In article <27719475-43C8-4750-94DF-E148184F497E at batten.eu.org>, Ian
Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes
>It's very rare for any utility company to offer more than "best
>efforts", with service-level-agreements almost unknown for domestic
>But on the other hand, they can't escape the "reasonable skill and
>care" test. What would be reasonable skill and care? With broadband,
>"consumer" broadband connections are de facto >99.9% available, and an
>ISP who delivered 80% and said "best efforts" would probably struggle
>to enforce its contracts (ie, if my ISP delivered 80% availability, I'd
>stop payment and argue they'd breached their side of the contract).
> But a filtering solution certainly isn't going to be 99.9% effective,
>so what does "best efforts" imply?
Different percentages for different activities. For example, my current
ISP seems to be a consistent basket case on Saturday evenings, which I
assume is a result of too many iPlayer users in the vicinity. But ask me
if I have the energy to sue them to provide anything like the connection
speed they sold me. [For the avoidance of doubt I don't mind that my "up
to 8Mbit" turns out to be 4Mbit, that's just my distance from the
exchange and the laws of physics. What I do mind is my non-streaming
throughput dropping way below 4Mbit too often.]
>They're C20 because the whole issue is C20. If the publishers won't
>rate, and the intermediary cannot rate, how can blocking work
Most people think it can't work very well, unless you have someone like
the IWf working very hard to produce a small and accurate block list.
From my experience of the mobile phone web blocking, it suffers from a
degree of Scunthorpe effect that would be amusing if it wasn't so daft.
More information about the ukcrypto