Slashdot Mirror

Replying to myself here. Here's the contact details for relevant ministers:

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
DEPUTY LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE
Parliamentary office
Suite MG70
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: 02 6277 7480
Fax: 02 6273 4154
Email address can be found here

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Or use this contact form

One thing that the Mercury article doesn't mention, is that part of the OPEL plan involves using the (currently dormant) Basslink fibre under Bass Strait, as well as construction of a second fibre. This will create a Telstra-free, fully redundant backhaul path from Victoria to Tasmania, which is what one of the biggest problems is with supply of broadband here - Telstra previously had a monopoly on it.
See http://www.minister.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf _file/69976/Fact_sheet_OPEL_Network.pdf

In the past, getting data from Victoria to Tasmania cost ISPs way more than what it would cost to get the same data from Sydney to Tokyo.
Source: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t =635221&p=4#r65

• I guess it's ok to incite hatred and violence, provided it's directed at Muslims
• I guess it's ok to call other Australians scum, as long as they are Muslim

Oh, and don't forget that our Dear Leader has decided to "reform" our media ownership laws, dissolving any requirement to have competing viewpoints. But it's okay, Senator Coonan has denied that any of the recent manouevering by media moguls has anything to do with the new media laws. They just happened to prepare for massive take-overs and the conglomeration of the market by co-incidence.

True, they're price gouging, but only because US ISPs price gouge them (sorry, word document). From the document:

International connectivity costs comprise the transmission link across the Pacific and the cost of access within the US. Under the internet charging arrangements, the non-US entity paid 100% of the transmission link costs to the US because the (peering or transit) agreements applied at the exchange point in the US. This seemed increasingly unfair as the balance of traffic shifted from 10:1 in favour of the US to 70: 301 and a heavy impost on non-US ISPs2 . The price of capacity from Australia was over US$100,000 per Mbps per month around 1993.

The costs have decreased since then but the bill to global ISPs from the US for peering in 2003 was still US$1.3billion. Of course the users get charged when the ISP is getting charged.

What a terrible article to link on the issue. It has next to nothing to say about any kind of regulation of online content other than that content broadcast live online is not covered by current laws. It seems quite sensible to bring this in line with other laws governing online content - it's what those other laws are which is the sticking point. The relevent federal minister's statement on the events can be found here - a link I found in a good blog post (on the news site linked in the summary) here. I would say that this is a classic case of governmental over-reaction and bumbling misunderstanding, but you can't really tell that from the article linked in the summary. In fact, I would say that the real fallout from it hasn't been seen yet - we'll see what legislation brings.

EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES
The following are common examples of electronic messages which are likely to be considered a commercial electronic message:
* offers of stock-market options, credit and mortgage arrangements;
* offers of computer goods including software and hardware;
* promotions of pharmaceutical and health-related products;
* promotions of sales at markets, shops or warehouses;
* sale of franchises or business ventures;
* advertisements for restaurants, exhibitions or trades services;
* promotions of pornographic websites or services; and
      advance fee or Nigerian scam2 emails, get-rich-quick schemes and gambling services.
*
EXAMPLES OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGES THAT MAY NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE
The following are examples of electronic messages which are not likely to be considered commercial electronic messages:
* community-focussed messages, for example, about the closure of local riding and walking tracks;
* surveys, for example, collecting statistics about the use of public services and utilities; and
* newsletters, for example, providing updates about matters of interest to the local community.

Nuisance messages such as those containing viruses may also not have a commercial purpose and may not be considered to be spam.

Messages of these types however may be subject to separate Australian legislation.

The Following links are as follows:

Spam and internet security information http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER:STANDARD::pc=PC_2 008 web page

Spam Act Review: http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/telcomm/industr y_codes/codes/iia%20spam%20code%20dec%202005.pdf

Spam Review http://www.dcita.gov.au/ie/spam_home/spam_act_revi ew2 documents.

Knock yourselves outwith it.

Slashdotgirl

unless spam or spyware is illegal in Australia

Spam is illegal in Australia. The worst parts of spyware are illegal too (deception, fraud, etc). The problem is filtering and/or how to behave during an operation. What I mean is that they have some knowledge of what can be addicting. You can do together.

unless spam or spyware is illegal in Australia

Spam is illegal in Australia. The worst parts of spyware are illegal too (deception, fraud, etc). The problem is filtering and/or how to behave during an operation. What I mean is that they have some knowledge of what can be addicting. You can do together.

Gartner predicts that 2003 will be a critical year for DRM when mainstream content providers begin to understand and identify the value propositions DRM systems can provide. Around this time full production systems will be launched and there will be some settling in technology and standards. This will take some of the 'chaos' and risk out of choosing a particular technology for each functionality area. More importantly, there is likely to be a higher availability of well-integrated and flexible systems from outsourcing services or Application Service Providers (ASP). This could dramatically lower the capital and technical investment required from content owners to implement and utilise a range of DRM, ecommerce, marketing and content techniques. In Gartner's view, it won't be until 2004, or more likely 2005, that revenue models start to mature and mainstream adoption of DRM becomes commonplace.

By 2006, Gartner sees the DRM market consolidating and a standard rights description language emerging. They identify the factors that will affect the success of the market as:

        * the acceptance by consumers of the regulation of e-content
        * the capability of the industry to establish a 'standard rights' language
        * the cost balance between developing a secure DRM solution and the potential revenue to be gained from DRM secured e-content management

And have done. I was involved with the people who managed to push through the 1999 Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act which makes it legal to reverse engineer software for interoperability, security analysis, to correct errors or just to learn how it works. It took the support of a dedicated team of lawyers and academics but, frankly, the law got changed simply because the people who were voting on it didn't really understand what we were asking for and didn't see the harm in giving it to us. Which really boils down to the lobbyists of proprietary software (like the BSA) not being nearly as organised as the lobbyists of the music industry.

Sure. here ya go.

http://www.minister.dcita.gov.au/media/media_relea ses/connect_australia_-_a_plan_to_future_proof_tel ecommunications

"Telstra will be required to maintain separate retail, wholesale and network business units and to publish internal contracts setting out non-price terms and conditions. The model for operational separation was developed on expert advice in consultation with Telstra and the ACCC. The details of price equivalence arrangements under this model will be determined though a working group under the Minister's direction."

Straight from the Minister's website, not that's an indication for anything.

http://www.dcita.gov.au/broad/online_content_and_g ambling_regulation/online_gambling

It's not about where the money goes, all online gambling is banned in Australia.

Yeah there are a lot of casinos and pokies in Australia, but at least they're regulated. And people have to go out of the house to get to them.

Most forms of gambling are legal in Australia. Most of the State Governments run some form of lottery, which raises much revenue (not to mention all the casinos and poker machines).

As far as I know, it is only illegal to run (and advertise) an online gambling site from within Australia. There is a press release at http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_4-2_4008-4_15 618,00.html from the man once described as the "world's greatest luddite", Richard Alston, the former Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=w orld's+greatest+luddite&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3Dcoun tryAU

"As we're getting our own version of the DMCA thanks to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement"

For some reason here in Australia people online have suddenly made a big hoo-haa about the Free Trade Agreement bringing the DMCA here and it makes me sit back and wonder where they were 5-6 years ago since it is already here and has been in effect for quite some time: Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000.

Not too long ago it was used in the Sony v Stevens case (and succeeded in the appeal) to make PS2 modchip sales illegal in Australia.

It's a bit late to be worrying about the affect of the DMCA in Australia now: We've had it for five years.

Frankly, for the cost of this supposed program one would have expected a better website!

Don't forget the World's Biggest Luddite and his $4m monstrosity. All that for, what, three templates? Anyway, we can hardly be the ones pointing the finger over governments wasting money on bad websites.

I posted this information in the earlier (less specific) story about the FTA's impact on Australian software development, but we really need to take action to let the media and politicians know that this is a big issue.

One of the best tactics is to send letters to newspapers. The FTA is a hot topic in the news right now, so there's a good chance that letters relating to it will be accepted. You can send letters to the editor at the following addresses:
The Australian
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age

You can also let your feeling be known to the shadow minister for the Arts, Sport and Information Technology (Senator Kate Lundy). Her contact details are here. Be sure to mention that this issue will affect your vote.

The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have so far brushed off any suggestion that Australia's software industry will be harmed by the FTA, and really do not seem to understand the issues. However, you can contact them here, and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts here. Once again, be sure to mention that this will affect your vote.

You can also find out which electorate you are in, if you don't already know, and send your local federal MP a message about how disappointed you are over the FTA's impact on the IT industry.

I posted this information in the earlier (less specific) story about the FTA's impact on Australian software development, but we really need to take action to let the media and politicians know that this is a big issue.

One of the best tactics is to send letters to newspapers. The FTA is a hot topic in the news right now, so there's a good chance that letters relating to it will be accepted. You can send letters to the editor at the following addresses:
The Australian
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age

You can also let your feeling be known to the shadow minister for the Arts, Sport and Information Technology (Senator Kate Lundy). Her contact details are here. Be sure to mention that this issue will affect your vote.

The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have so far brushed off any suggestion that Australia's software industry will be harmed by the FTA, and really do not seem to understand the issues. However, you can contact them here, and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts here. Once again, be sure to mention that this will affect your vote.

You can also find out which electorate you are in, if you don't already know, and send your local federal MP a message about how disappointed you are over the FTA's impact on the IT industry.

I posted this information in the earlier (less specific) story about the FTA's impact on Australian software development, but we really need to take action to let the media and politicians know that this is a big issue.

One of the best tactics is to send letters to newspapers. The FTA is a hot topic in the news right now, so there's a good chance that letters relating to it will be accepted. You can send letters to the editor at the following addresses:
The Australian
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age

You can also let your feeling be known to the shadow minister for the Arts, Sport and Information Technology (Senator Kate Lundy). Her contact details are here. Be sure to mention that this issue will affect your vote.

The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have so far brushed off any suggestion that Australia's software industry will be harmed by the FTA, and really do not seem to understand the issues. However, you can contact them here, and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts here. Once again, be sure to mention that this will affect your vote.

You can also find out which electorate you are in, if you don't already know, and send your local federal MP a message about how disappointed you are over the FTA's impact on the IT industry.

I don't think its the copying of shows that is the issue in oz.
The tv market in Australia relies really heavy on advertisers.

What are the chances of this becoming an election issue?
Under its current policies, including an opposition to a 5th commercial free-to-air station, This department would not be in favour.

Reverse engineering codecs/encryption methods without paying royalties is just as bad as software piracy.

No, it's not. Even ignoring the artificial scarcity that goes against all traditional economic systems, reverse engineering for interopability has traditionally been legal in europe, and it is legal in Austrailia too.

I've got nothing wrong with anyone writing commercial software for Linux, and I have several commercial programs. Mathematic functions should not have any copy restrictions though.

Oh, and I'm encrypting this message with ROT-26. If you decrypt it you are as bad as what you claim to detest.

Actually, we've already got DMCA provisions. You're not allowed to break copy-protection on computer software. There are a few exceptions to this rule, however, as explained in this guide to the Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act (1999). The link is a guide to the amendment, but I was unable to find a copy of the amendment itself. Quoth the page:

What do the new laws allow me to do? The new Division allows you to reproduce (including by decompilation) a computer program:

• as part of the normal running of the program;
• in order to study how it functions;
• to make a back-up copy of the program;
• to make an interoperable product;
• to correct errors in the program; or
• to test its security.

Another provision of note is that mod chips are legal here, as decided in the 'Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2002] FCA 906' decision, where Sony lost (Muhahahahaha!).

(and something like 99% coverage for mobiles)

From the Department of Communications, etc's website:

3. How much mobile coverage is there?

GSM and CDMA networks cover up to 97.5 per cent of the Australian population and 13.7 per cent of the Australian landmass. This is expected to increase to more than 98 per cent coverage of the population and around 18 per cent coverage of the landmass upon completion of the rollout of Commonwealth funded infrastructure under various targeted funding initiatives.

Satellite mobile phone services cover 100 per cent of the population and landmass, including the external territories.

That's not entirely true.

In the land Down Under, Telstra is the dominant telco, and it's currently 51% government owned. The current Liberal Party (think: nice Republicans)-National Party (think: farmers) coalition government really wants to flog off the rest. The problem is that Telstra provides many services to the underpopulated areas (aka "the Bush", who are generally represented by the National Party half of the Coalition) that really don't make much economic sense but make a lot of political sense. Also, it's sort of halfway decent that the outback farmers get at least a phone service. Anyway, every man and his dog knows that if Telstra gets fully privatised, *bang* there goes any semblance of service to the bush, since it is just not econmical.

To that end, the government has brought in a Service Guarantee (including Universal Service Obligations) that says (amongst other things) Telstra must provide certain minimum standards to all subscribers, and if they don't they get smacked. The government hopes that after a few years we'll all see what a good corporate citizen Telstra is and give the Libs the OK to flog off the other 51% of Telstra.

Now, one big complaint from the bush is that they get bugger all access to broadband. Even getting net access at all can be tricky for them. Satellite (if available) is very expensive. This would almost certainly not improve under a toally privatised Telstra. However, if Telstra could provide near-broadband to the bush without having to string up hundreds of miles of cable, things would again be looking promising for the privatisation thing to be on the agenda again.

Speaking from a purely Australian voter/taxpayer POV, the keyphrase is the National Party might be the junior member of the coalition but they can wield a fair amount of power over the Libs when they want to.

I'm an Aussie, too.

Senator Alston may not be the greatest **computer** intellectual, but let's be fair. Who writes this stuff? He does not invent policy or Bill text himself.

Someone in these places is doing it:
- Department of Communications, IT and the Arts http://www.dcita.gov.au (e.g. Networking the Nation http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_3-3_461-4 _106337,00.html)
- National Office for the Information Economy http://www.noie.gov.au/
- Treasury's e-commerce office http://www.ecommerce.treasury.gov.au/
- somewhere else in the Australian Federal Government http://www.fed.gov.au

Yet, the semi-Westminster form of Government we operate under in Australia both appluads and blames the Minister responsible. Sen. Richard Alston

I'm an Aussie, too.

Senator Alston may not be the greatest **computer** intellectual, but let's be fair. Who writes this stuff? He does not invent policy or Bill text himself.

Someone in these places is doing it:
- Department of Communications, IT and the Arts http://www.dcita.gov.au (e.g. Networking the Nation http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_3-3_461-4 _106337,00.html)
- National Office for the Information Economy http://www.noie.gov.au/
- Treasury's e-commerce office http://www.ecommerce.treasury.gov.au/
- somewhere else in the Australian Federal Government http://www.fed.gov.au

Yet, the semi-Westminster form of Government we operate under in Australia both appluads and blames the Minister responsible. Sen. Richard Alston

According to his home page, he enjoys pumping iron. Does that change your mind?

According to his home page, he enjoys pumping iron. Does that change your mind?

If that is your gripe, how did you feel about the content laws for things being hosted in Australia (being managed by the ABA).
Not to mention Using internet for offensive and menacing purposes to be outlawed (and EFA's response).

It will take a lot more than this (and even this I am not convinced is a + rather than a -) to make me have any respect for Alston and his cronies.

similar deal here in australia, where we have a nutjob Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts who thinks that pornography is one of the major reasons why there's been a high take-up rate (of broadband) in South Korea and uses this (and a belief that kids only want broadband access to play games) as a reason to not fund, or agitate for, improved broadband access here in Australia.

You pay through the nose for a shitty service, and until they fix that, both in price and reliability, I'll stick to abusing my work bandwidth and stay with the trusty old agravatingly slow, but unlimited bandwidth, 56K dialup for home net access.

At least with a dialup deal, I can set up bulk downloads of whatever (no i'm not a p2p junkie) and leave the auto-redialer on to re-connect when i get disconnected. i'd rather that than have to pay A$80+ for a decent home broadband connection.

At least that's what our Australian Federal Government is doing.

And our tech minister (Richard Alston) is about as technically advanced as stoneage man. His idea of a reboot, is to kick his press secretary. His latest faux-pas is to deny responsibility for his own official website which cost megabucks.

At least some techie is making money out of him somewhere but chances are, it isn't an Aussie. Dammit.

IT policy in Australia is a national disgrace and will continue to be as long as Richard Alston is in charge. He has been dubbed Senator "Luddite" by The Register. Gross stupidity withstanding, everything he does is clearly to benefit one person: Richard Alston. I know someone who stood next to him in a photo shoot recently and she said Senator Alston spent about 30 minutes getting makeup done before the picture was taken. She also said his perfume (sorry cologne) stinks.
His website reflects his self-aggrandizing nature. Notice how Senator Luddite's name is plastered all over the website taking credit for his staffers work like this report on spam
His latest disaster was revealed in parliament recently when it was revealed that he spent $4 million dollars on his departments website. When the scandal broke, the press went around and received quotes from web shops for roughly $65000 for the exact same job. Have a look yourself. There are multiple javascript errors on the home page apparently. I'm not suprised. I've corresponded with this department and many of the staffers have problems receiving/sending email. It's a joke that this office should be setting IT policy in Australia

For the curious, you can download (.pdf, .rtf):

the original act plus revisions

the copyright act amendment, known as the Digital Agenda

The reader will note that for the purpose of copyright infringement, actions that are not specifically allowed are considered to be infringing. Making .mp3's out of legally purchased CDs is technically an infringement, as it is not listed in the permissives, and not explicitly endorsed by (most) content producers.

More specifically, you can check another government site to learn what they interpret copyright infringement as.

I quote from the above: "Infringement of copyright can happen when works - such as paintings, books, computer software, films and music - are reproduced without permission from the copyright owners."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse..

This one does.

Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and 2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.

I had a quick check of the things I claimed above. It seems that:

• you can't copy music (in any form)
• you can back up computer software

I stand corrected. :-)

The Guide to the Digital Agenda Act 2000 -- Australia's
version of the DMCA -- could be useful in clarifying who is responsible for
policing this sort of thing.

There is one interesting bit in
particular:

ISPs and carriers

The Act
also clarifies the liability of telecommunications carriers and carriage service
providers, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These groups are not
liable for infringing material communicated via their facilities, unless they
have control over the content of the material, (eg if they administer the
website themselves), or they authorise an infringing act by another (eg their
subscribers). The key factors in determining whether they have authorised an
infringement include:

* the ability to prevent the
infringement;
* the relationship with the infringer;
* the steps
taken to avoid infringement; and
* compliance with any relevant industry
codes of practice

in otherwords

tough shit RIAA

I think most people would regard the telecoms industry as separate to the IT hardware industry actually.

Perhaps, but it's worth noting that in the country in question, Australia, the two industries are handled by the same Commonwealth government department. Then again, this department is run by the same id10t who thinks broadband is only good for pr0n and warez.
So I guess it comes down to where the line should be drawn between companies that are too similar to share a name, and those that differ enough for it not to be a problem...

I think most people would regard the telecoms industry as separate to the IT hardware industry actually.

Perhaps, but it's worth noting that in the country in question, Australia, the two industries are handled by the same Commonwealth government department. Then again, this department is run by the same id10t who thinks broadband is only good for pr0n and warez.
So I guess it comes down to where the line should be drawn between companies that are too similar to share a name, and those that differ enough for it not to be a problem...

For those who are not familiar with the infamous Senator, his profile can be seen here.

Eat me like a sausage!

Hey, Australia is a member of the WTO, therefore it must implement the IP protocol outlined in the WTO's TRIPS agreement (the copyright provisions of which are basically the international form of the DMCA). You didn't think that trans-national corporations would be happy with inflicting their laws on a single country, did you?

The Australian version of the DMCA is called the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000. Information about it can be found here.

Nothing.

The net is as free (as in speech) as it was 5 years ago. None of these laws have made any difference. Those that actually get off the drawing board go through so many committees and are so ludicrous they are easily circumvented.

Look at the Australian Internet censorship laws - in the first six months since they came into effect, how much porn has the government erradicated? All of it? Half? 1%? No, just 93 web pages! That's like shooting a hundred cows in England and declaring Foot and Mouth disease cured.

Salieri writes, "Ever notice how it's sometimes very difficult to tell which is the real or relevant link in the article write-up? Perhaps the editors can distinguish where the main attraction is." He then clicks preview to make sure the links work.

--------------------------------

Might I suggest checking out the Tasmanian Government Internet Publishing Standards (TGIPS) at Go.Tas (they are a little out-of-date but still contain good stuff, and also ServiceTasmania which IMHO is a very well designed site, give the search a go its quite cleverly designed. For some clever technical ideas try TheLIST a land info site and enACT a collation of Tas. legislation - in all the web research I've done I find this the easiest legislation site to find what you want quickly (if for some obscure reason you might be looking for Tas. legislation). For an example of terrible government site design go to here. There are unfortunately many other examples I could list. Anyhow hope that helps a bit.

The Minister is interested in your views and encourages feedback on the issues and activities in his portfolio.

If you would like to suggest to the Minister that perhaps he has misunderstood the "industry", or that the views of "industry" are not necessarily those of the people he represents please send an email to the Minister.

Address in Canberra (capital):
The Senate,
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT 2600
AUSTRALIA
Ph: +612 6277 7111
Fax: +612 6277 3387

Address in Melbourne (home state):
2nd Floor,
4 Treasury Place,
East Melbourne, VIC 3002
AUSTRALIA
Ph: +613 9650 0233
Fax: +613 9650 0220

www.aph.gov.au/senate
richard.alston@dcita.gov.au

Contact Sen Richard Alston.
Polite but firm works best.

So does this mean that all .au ISPs will have to implement either a mandatory proxy server or packet filters?

Probably. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to remain "technology neutral" - in other words, to ignore that their proposal is unworkable and expect the ISPs to implement it anyway.

If you have a look at the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts web site and follow to the "Newsroom" link, you find such brilliant statements as:

'The Bill meets the Government's objective of helping protect Australian citizens, especially children, from illegal and highly offensive material, but it does so without placing an undue burden on the internet industry,'

This, of course, conveniently ignores that most Australian citizens don't want to be protected.