[LINK] Compulsory disclosure of privacy breaches

[Richard Chirgwin]

Glen Turner wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 09:55 +0000, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>   
>> You make some fair points re supposed net neutrality legislation here in
>> Australia, Richard. Basically as you say, we don't need it, and therefore
>> the issue has failed to gain traction in Australia. Fred, would you agree?
>>     
>
> You might also view the lack of interest as being partly due to the lack
> of massive content sites located in Australia.  Without those sites an
> argument about telco discrimination between content providers fails to
> get much traction.
>   
A very interesting observation, Glen...
> Also, we haven't had any ISPs try it on here, partly become politics
> plays differently here.  Let's say ISP T gives preference to content
> providers on ISP T's network.  
Actually, Telstra does give preference to content providers on its own 
network - but it does so primarily through charging mechanisms: people 
who watch BigPond video content get it unmetered. I guess the same is 
true of other ISP video services.

Which raises an interesting question: is it "better" to have neutrality 
undermined by explicit mechanisms (such as QoS), or in the billing 
mechanism?

RC
> Now the content providers in Australia
> are either government-owned or are owned by media proprietors M, P or F.
> M, P, F all have a fairly direct line to a prime minister with a deep
> interest in the continuing support of those media proprietors.  ISP T
> is in deep political trouble, since it has now provoked forthcoming
> regulation which it can't control.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>