Adult content blocks on mobile ISPs

[Ian Batten]

On 5 Mar 2011, at 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> It's very rare for any utility company to offer more than "best  
> efforts", with service-level-agreements almost unknown for domestic  
> consumers.

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?


>
>> Assume filtering would be aligned with BBFC criteria, so that an  
>> ISP would offer 12A, 15, 18 or R18 feeds.
>
> That's a non-starter because the various 'publishers' are not  
> required to rate their content, nor can an intermediary start rating  
> everything on the fly. (These suggestions of yours are very 20th  
> Century if I may say so. Various proposals for rating/filtering  
> schemes all died out a long time ago).

They're C20 because the whole issue is C20.  If the publishers won't  
rate, and the intermediary cannot rate, how can blocking work?

ian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20110305/5c45af4e/attachment.htm>