Quote:
Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
There is no conclusive proof that this sort performance reduction will occur, as there has been no generative data for long term studies done over filtering.
|
Senator Conroy's predecessor Helen Coonan moved away from insisting internet service providers offer filtering after a 2006 NetAlert study showed the filters were expensive, difficult to set up, frequently inaccurate and drastically slowed the network performance.
Six filters were tested under optimised conditions, but the best responder resulted in an 18 per cent reduction in relative performance, while the worst cut performance by 78 per cent.
"The better-performing filters can process data at between 30-80Mbps, which would still provide sufficient performance for a small ISP," the report said.
"However, for larger ISPs with faster upstream connections, the use of such filters would severely reduce their performance levels."
--
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/...-15306,00.html
It includes links, might want to read them too, one of them to a study you say doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
I am not advocating all pervasive censorship or monitoring, I donot even know where you got that idea from
|
If this filter is to be effective, that is what will be required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy
If you are advocating a world of zero censorship then you have to allow something like child pornography to be included under the guise of free speech
|
How do you figure that, do you even know what free speech means? It doesn't cover criminal activity.