The initiative is part of the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program (RBBP) with the completion announced yesterday by Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Mr Conroy stated that the new link would provide greater competition, better value services and faster broadband throughout the stretch of 1150kms that the link entails.

The RBBO will provide retail service providers the ability to offer better broadband services in the following towns:

Gawler
Tanunda
Angaston
Nuriootpa
Kapunda
Dutton East
Waikerie
Wigley Flat
Barmera
Berri
Renmark
Morcalla North
Merbein
Mildura
Coombah
Broken Hill
Red Cliffs
Chippendale
Robinvale
Kyalite
Swan Hill
Mystic Park
Kerang
Cohuna
Torrumbarry
Echuca
Moama
Kyabram
Mooroopna
Shepparton

Source: dbcde.gov.au

With many issues and decision confronting Julia Gillard right from the word ‘Go’, I’m sure at some stage one of the concerns would be whether Senator Kate Lundy would make a better minister than Mr Conroy? What a prospect this would be. Taking into consideration the harsh criticism Stephen Conroy constantly receives from his relationships within the industry, opposed to the respect for Kate Lundy, and not to mention their indifference in opinions on the Internet Filter subject, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a strong north easterly blew into the DBCDE and performed some spring clean at some stage.

The Australian Federal Government has slashed fundings for the Australian Broadband Guarantee subsidy from $271 million in the 2008/09 budget over four years, to $230 million over the same period in this years 2009/10 budget. 

Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy appear to have reduced spendings on initiatives such as the ABG in favor to support new programs such as Cyber Safety, the child protection initiative. The ABG funding reduction corresponds with the Governments $43 billion national broadband network plans to extend high speed broadband to regional Australia.

The Australian Broadband Guarantee was originally introduced as a $2500 incentive for National and Regional Internet Service Providers to offer Satellite, Wireless and ADSL services, with Internet access speeds comparable to metropolitan areas, to those in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia.

It seems that Broadband for the Bush will just have to wait, yet again, for the next ‘Government Broadband Project’ that will address backhaul and offer those Aussies who live outside major metro areas the high speed broadband services that they deserve.

Why is Senator Conroy and the Federal Government so adamant on obtaining ‘control’ of the Internet within Australia?

Ever heard of the metaphor ‘opening a can of worms’? Well if there was ever a good example of this meaning, the whole Australian Internet content filtering censorship issue would be a great definition. The term ‘issue’ is argubaly being applied lightly here and possibly not the best adjective for describing this instance. Some may refer to it more indicatively as a ‘farce’, ‘debacle’ or ‘complete ballsup’, or stronger still, the capitulation of freedom. It’s like C’mon Mr Conroy! How dare the current Labor Government treat the Australian society with such contempt and think they can get away with it? Then again, haven’t they been doing this for years and years and getting away with it anyway? So what’s the real principle driving force behind the Internet censorship push in Australia? Is it through ‘Fear’ and ‘Total Control’ that the Government elect to proceed down this path, or is it through the sheer concern for the people and the willingness to protect the flock?

In case you’ve just crawled out from under a rock, to date we have a Communications Minister that’s been labeled ’pathectic’, voted the country’s worst in decades and one that’s been basically accused of trying to undermine the Australian public by essentially wanting to control the Internet and hiding behind the excuse that he’s trying to protect our children from pedophile predators. Of course we all care for our kids safety, but C’mon Mr Conroy, what do you take us for?  In various online forums and blogs many progressive thinkers and informed contributors seem wary of the consequences that such a mandatory reform may bring. Having the ability to completely control all of our media portals and freedom of speech is perhaps the major concern expressed by many.

There are of obviously many shortcomings involved with the Internet, exposure to graphic, violent and inappropriate content along terrorism elements are just some of the ramifications we face. But what price will we have to pay in order to try and eradicate this sediment and furthermore, can we succeed? At the end of the day a mandatory filtering approach may be perceived as an action taken by fearful Government to which it will only succeed in obtaining a fearful re-action.  The longer this debate is waged, the greater the issue will esculate and depending on mainstream public perception, it may very well see the Government being kept or booted out come the next Australian Election. I suspect the latter of the two.

After reading many comments and concerns in relation to mandatory filtering, and if I can condense the feedback into one sentence, it would chiefly revolve around the concerns of the whole filtering process, it’s transparency and the ‘accountability’ of such. Simply speaking, what would stop the good hearted Senator from pulling any site off the Internet that he chose to, and regardless of what type content was displayed on it? I could name counteless types of hypothetical scenarios, and morever ’who would watch the watchers’?

Delving below the surface of the the subject at hand, I think its vital that a major decision making process of this magnitude require careful consideration, significant debate, feasibilty, ultimately required and extensive research into all possible outcomes, both positive and negative. Senator Conroy appears to be moving swiftly on this issue while waving his flag of ‘protection’, but many are suggesting that it’s a veil of ‘deceit’ shielding alternative agendas as well. He was recently dealt another blow when he released a statement on the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) where Mr Conroy condemned a reported leak of prohibited Internet addresses while at the same time emphasising the online safety of our children. The Senator claimed that the black banned website list which appeared on the Wikileaks.org was fake and had the following to say on the matter –

“This is not the ACMA blacklist.”

“The leak and publication of prohibited URLs is grossly irresponsible. It undermines efforts to improve cyber–safety and create a safe online environment for children,”

“The published list purports to be current at 6 August 2008 and apparently contains approximately 2400 URLs whereas the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1061 URLs.”

“ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution.”

Wikileaks responded (as below) to the threats sentimented by the Communication’s Senator and ironically stood firm behind constitutional law themselves and in turn, basically threatened to have Senator Stephen Conroy extradited if he breached the law -

“Under the Swedish Constitution’s Press Freedom Act, the right of a confidential press source to anonymity is protected, and criminal penalties apply to anyone acting to breach that right,” the organisation said.

“Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and, if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights.”