Introduction


14 reasons why the filter is a bad idea

Cost goes up

Speed goes down

Reliability goes down

Free speech is weakened

The filter is based on lies

Security risk is increased

Risk to privacy

The filter won't work

Overblocking

Anything can be blocked

Other costs

Putting kids at risk

No need - no want

There are better alternatives


What can I do?

FAQ

Links and further reading

Feedback

Speed goes down

It simply isn't possible to implement the filter without causing some reduction in speed.

Generally, the more effective the filter, the greater the slowdown. ISPs will prefer to use the fastest and, as a result, less effective filter. Chairman Krudd will want them to use a slower, more effective filter. Noone knows how that will play out.

As more and more web pages are added to the list to be blocked, even the fastest filter will eventually slow down even more.

Weaknesses will be found in the filter. If each weakness is patched up, the filter will get more and more complex, slower and slower and less and less reliable.

What about the National Broadband Network?

Currently Chairman Krudd is planning to spend around $21b of taxpayers' money on a new National Broadband Network, which aims to provide a speed of up to 100 Mbit/sec to most Australians. Spend $21b on the NBN and spend $44m to slow it down again? Does Chairman Krudd's left hand know what his right hand is doing?

The trials of the filter that were conducted only tested at a maximum speed of 8 Mbit/sec. That is just stupid considering that even today you can get an internet connection with a speed of 30 Mbit/sec.

As internet speeds increase even further in the future, the filter will be the "weakest link". It will be less and less able to keep up. Network speeds are increasing faster than computing speeds.