ISP Filtering: Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence?

What constitutes evidence in policy-making? Is it a case of making policy based on evidence, or making evidence to support policy?

Obviously, an ISP filtering trial will provide evidence about the success/usefulness/cost etc of filtering Net content at the ISP. But what about the 'evidence' which suggests that Australians do not want mandatory ISP filtering?

The point I am making is that the use of the term 'evidence-based policy' is purely spin in this instance - in effect, it is policy-based evidence-making.

Why do we need evidence on a policy which nobody wants? The Minister for Broadband was provided with considerable 'evidence' on ABC’s Q&A recently: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm.

Indeed, the results of Netspace’s customer poll on compulsory ISP filtering were quite conclusive (with a sample size of 10,000).

But what 'evidence' do I need to suggest that ISP filtering is a case of putting the cart before the horse? The major problem for us lowly citizens is getting access to the evidence when even the federal opposition needs to use FOI laws to get access to the government’s information. What chance does the average citizen have?

I maintain that ISP filtering is a side-issue. Nonetheless, it is good to hear from the Minister for Broadband that the NBN will be rolled out on a fast-track plan where market failure in broadband access is occuring:

The ACCC has confirmed that places with only a single provider of backhaul services include: Geraldton in Western Australia, Mt Gambier in South Australia, Broken Hill in New South Wales, Mildura in Victoria, Mt Isa in Queensland, and Darwin in the Northern Territory.

Connecting the Big Tube to the Big Screen

I like the ITU's explanation of 'broadband'. What surprises me is that there has been little push by firms to come up with a consumer-friendly setup to connect the Big Tube to the Big Screen.

PayTV (especially in Australia) is an absolute rip-off. There is simply not enough content. Meanwhile, there is so much content on the Net but it is expensive to buy all the equipment and difficult to obtain the know-how to set up a Big Screen with a PC for watching Net content.

If I had a Net business, I would work out the least expensive way to setup the Big Tube to the Big Screen and package the equipment with a Net plan so that I would never have to be 'broadcast at' again - I could simply 'tune-in' or find what I wanted when it suited me.

In the meantime, I would be interested in any ideas on how people are veiwing Big Tube to Big Screen content. I just hope it happens in my lifetime and is not thwarted by the interests of those who wish to keep me stuck with free-to-air television programs which are little more than Big Ads.

Minister for Broadband: How much 'evidence' do you need?

Optus will participate in the government's ISP filtering trial. If I was an Optus customer, I wouldn't be now! Imagine knowing that your ISP was blocking your access to the Net? The Big Brotherness of the whole idea is just unpalatable.

According to the Minister for Broadband, the justification for the trial is to provide 'evidence':

"The participation of Optus will help ensure the government obtains robust results from the pilot, which will inform the evidence-based development of our ISP filtering policy"

Evidence-based policy, as the process is known in policy circles, is meant to provide a rational means for developing policy. It fits comfortably with the ideas of the rational, choice-making individual operating in a market economy. Yet not everyone agrees that policy-making can ever be a rational process.

But the problem is so irrational it must be poking the Minister for Broadband's eye out. How much evidence is needed to prove that ISP filtering is unwelcome in Australia's liberal democracy? Do you really need the statistics to prove that this policy deserves to be scrapped now? Has there been a single voice which supports the idea of ISP filtering? How much evidence do you really need to stop pushing this policy?

This feeble attempt at 'evidence-based policy' should be called what it is: nothing less than a sham.

This post was me exercising my right to free speech. Regrettably, Optus customers may have trouble viewing my post.