Net filters could put ISPs $1M out of pocket
- 10 March, 2010 10:33
- Comments 14
The Federal Government’s Internet content filter scheme could put many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) up to $1 million out of pocket.
Three of Australia’s biggest ISPs, two of which did not wish to comment on the record, have said independently that the filters could cost up to $1 million to implement.
Other ISPs said they had not priced the roll out, some citing a lack of information on the scheme.
Internode network engineer, Mark Newton, said a workable distributed content filtering system could cost $1 million.
“I'd have to build it again twice as big every 18 months, as traffic loads tend to take that long to double, leading to a five-year CAPEX cost somewhere in the vicinity of $7 million,” Newton said.
“I think I could design and build a system that didn't work very well for sub-$100,000.
“All this is assuming that systems [exist that are] capable of operating without performance degradation on the 10Gb interfaces we use, which right now [means] placing significantly more faith in censorware snake-oil vendors than I'm willing to invest,” he said.
Telstra had not responded to questions at the time of publication, however Newton said the cost of implementing the filters for a telco of Telstra’s size would be “enormous... and order of magnitude larger than [$1 - $7 million]”.
One c-level executive for a large ISP, who requested anonymity, said it would cost about $1 million based on current network configuration.
“If [we are] required to only filter international website addresses, then [the filter] can be deployed on the international links, otherwise if domestic URLs need filtering we will need multiple filters in every capital city,” he said.
“The government [should] subsidise filters. It’s an unnecessary expense that only the government thinks will... stop illegal content. Demanding that industry foot the bill for a technological solution that the experts have unanimously said won’t work is a political sop, and [it] shouldn’t be imposed on industry.”
Another ISP chief engineer, who also did not wish to be named, said the ongoing operating cost of the content filters could quickly exceed the $1 million required to establish them.
Outspoken Exetel chief, John Linton, estimates the filter could cost an ISP of its size between $25,000 and $75,000. A trial of the filters conducted last year by the ISP found the technology to be less costly and more effective than many in the industry anticipated.
Linton said filtering would cost about "$25,000 for 50,000 users" — about 50 cents a subscriber.
Each respondent agreed it was too early to determine a definitive cost until the Federal Government clarifies its plans.
A spokeswoman for communications minister, Stephen Conroy, said she understands the government is in consultation with industry to establish costing.
ISPs said questions remain on liability if content filters fail, whether bypass mechanisms can be installed to mitigate outages and if the government will subsidise a centralised filter server to remove the prohibitive costs for a group of smaller ISPs.
Newton said a voluntary content filter model, proposed by former communications minister, Helen Coonan, would the cheapest to engineer because it could be assumed that only small percentage would opt-in to the system.
A Ovum 2003 report on Internet content filtering, commissioned by Coonan’s office, recommended the government subsidise the scheme and assist smaller ISPs with ongoing management. The Internet environment has changed dramatically, however, since the report was released, however, particularly in relation to the takeup of broadband services.
Newton said his sub-$100,000 filtering model would "use [Web Cache Communication Protocol] WCCP or DNS redirection on LNSs to divert blacklisted destination IPs to a farm of proxy caches with the blacklist loaded on them. I would have to be able to turn the whole thing off... if the caches were overloaded and impacted normal performance expectations, until the offending URLs were unblacklisted".
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- iPhone 5 rumour rollup for the week ending February 10
- 3D mapping revives underwater city
- Academic challenges Turnbull over NBN satellite criticism
- What are you saying: Telstra’s customer service slowly improving, SA minister urging Facebook to overturn its photo ban
- In pictures: Capgemini opens new Canberra office
-
Windows Event Viewer phishing scam remains active
-
NeuroSky MindWave: Fun with Brainwaves
-
20 popular Ubuntu Linux apps you may want to try
-
Nokia N9: Why you shouldn't buy this device
-
Microsoft at a loss over Event Viewer scam
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Microsoft Office
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®












Comments
Daniel
Well there you go. Too costly for the ISP, and public taxes should not be paying (or subsidising) for this either.
Just leave it the market. Some company will end up designing filtering software that users can install on their pc's, if they choose to do so,
or ISP's can invest in it themselves, and charge users to use the filter, if the users chooses to do so.
Rudd, it's time to drop this idea before it really, really backfires - cause it sounds a little too much like big brother deciding for us, and at our expense!
Geoff
All Australian ISP's could just send their operations offshore to China and get the same filtering censorship that the government wants. Maybe we could become a Chinese special zone and get rid of all our govenments altogether !
Onya comrade Conroy !
Ben
Yes, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a system which the industry says doesn't work and can be trivially circumvented....
I thought "not a silver bullet" solutions are meant to be cheap...
Gavin
Daniel,
"some company will end up designing filtering software that users can install on their pc's, if they choose to do so,"
These services already exist viz. http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?start=9
Peter
“I think I could design and build a system that didn't work very well for sub-$100,000."
Mark says it all: "didn't work very well". If he left Internet filtering to so called "snake-oil vendors" who know what they are doing then their filters will work very well and save him a heap of money. Just ask Exetel, who proved it. One of these filtering systems will cost a lot less than he says.
Mark's design is flawed as it contains a proxy, which caused the problems with Wikipedia in the UK last year. Mark should stick to talking about what he knows about, obviously not internet filters.
Ben
@ Peter
Any filtering system will fail when it adds a high traffic URL to the blacklist, proxy system or not. The only solution to that problem is to either blacklist the entire website or not blacklist any part of the site.
The vendors sell the censorware. They don't sell their services to re-design an entire ISP network to suit that particular censorware. It's not as simple as plugging in the power cord and turning the machine on.
Nick
@Peter
Newton is right. I've seen the snake oil filters and some of them do have a significant performance impact on the network.
That's on a small network. On larger networks the problem is compounded by the number of concurrent users which if all of them hit the blacklist (i.e. a particular address like youtube) can potentially cause the collapse of the network.
For Telstra this is a nightmare. Exetel only has 50k-100k users Telstra have a million or more. I've worked on websites with more than a million hits per day and network becomes temperamental and plagued with unimaginable issues.
I'd hate to work at Telstra when this comes in.
Then there is the whole issue that this money is being wasted because it won't stop one child looking at 18+ or RC material. Only a parent can do that.
Mat
BAHAHAHAHAHAH
i laugh at the government
when this thing comes on. i'll be visiting RC websites left and right
this is way too easy
Brad
"WCCP or DNS redirection"
A ten year old with 5 minutes on google will find out how to bypass this.
what a deplorable waste of money.
Max T
And the fool Conroy and his useless boss, Rudd STILL won't listen.
These men are dangerous fools.
Anon
The devices used in the trial had a 4Gbps throughput, how many do you think an ISP will need when they start selling 100Mbps services on the NBN?
Daz
It seems to me that an excellent solution is two-fold.
1) Filter international links for illegal content, because overseas content is currently uncontrolled. Some countries have very different laws so Australian police will not always get a favourable response when advising of illegal content. Illegal content in Australia doesn't need to filtered, it can just be reported to the police.
2) Draw up guidelines for ISPs in Australia to offer opt-in filters to their customers. It may need to be mandated that large ISPs (>50-100,000 customers) must offer this service.
TuffGuy
That means a massive amount of money being spent to basically achieve next to nothing. Only the censorware snake oil vendors stand to profit, and obviously they must be a mate of Conroys given the way he is pushing this issue.
Danny Filth
@Tuffyguy
I wonder if the censorware snake oil vendors are involved in the Australian Christian Lobby, AFACT, the MPAA, RIAA, or major pharmaceutical companies?
Post new comment