Andrew's View is a place where I get to express my feelings, views and opinions on various issues.
Andrew's View Index - Latest entries
Internet Filtering: When did we become a dictatorship? (10/04/2010)
AFACT vs iiNet - A Sensible Decision (6/02/2010)
iPad: Will it or won't it? (6/02/2010)
Go Card - could it have been more botched? (24/01/2010)
That’s not "fare"! (24/01/2010)
Where does the responsibility lie? (24/12/2009)
"Failing" Government but who do you turn to? (1/11/2009)
| Internet Filtering: When did we become a dictatorship? | Australia | 10/04/2010 |
Click here for printer friendly version
(CTRL-click to view without leaving Andrew's Place.)
Before the last election, the Rudd Government (then Opposition) proposed to introduce internet filtering at the ISP level. This would be an optional service to help families protect children.
Since winning the election, the government has turned their proposal into mandatory filtering – a move likened to the Great Firewall of China.
Here are some facts about the revised plan:
- Only known "Refused Classification" (RC) sites on a secret blacklist will be filtered.
- The filter will not block adults-only material. (Families will still need to purchase their own filtering software for this – unless their ISP offers it.)
- People who want to view RC websites will be able to circumvent the filter by using anonymous proxy servers (or open proxies) located outside of Australia.
- The filter will not block peer-to-peer (P2P) transfers (e.g. BitTorrent), which is the primary method used to share pornographic material (including child pornography).
- The filter will affect the speed of the internet.
- Sites may be inadvertently added to the blacklist (e.g. Because they are hacked) with no notice given to the site administrator.
With these facts, I can only come to the following conclusions:
- The filter will not protect children. (They can still view adults-only material unless additional filtering software is installed.)
- The filter will not prevent those who want to view RC material from doing so. They will either use an anonymous proxy or P2P.
- The secret blacklist is likely to be leaked, providing a haven for people using anonymous proxies to circumvent the filter.
- We’ll have to put up with slower internet speeds – which are bad enough to begin with given the cable distance from other countries.
The entire policy is a joke – devised by people with little or no knowledge of the internet.
Of course – we live in a democracy. The people should be able to decide regardless of my personal beliefs on the plan. What do the people say?
This poll was conducted by the Fairfax news network and speaks for itself.
So I question – with such opposition from the people for a plan that has changed significantly since the election and clearly will not do what it was intended to do – why is the government still forcing this upon us? Since when did we become a dictatorship?
Update: This was another poll. As you can see the majority of people don't think it's as radical as China, but do think that it is unnecessary.
| AFACT vs iiNet - A Sensible Decision | Australia | 6/02/2010 |
Click here for printer friendly version
(CTRL-click to view without leaving Andrew's Place.)
In case you hadn’t heard, the Australian Federal Court dismissed a claim by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) against the Internet Service Provider iiNet (who happens to be my provider). AFACT was representing movie companies and claimed that iiNet didn’t do enough to prevent piracy on its network as it had failed to warn or disconnect users who the movie companies claimed had downloaded or distributed movies illegally.
This action amounts to suing Australia Post or a Courier for delivering a package that happened to contain a pirated DVD. Fortunately an Australian Court Judge saw the folly in this and dismissed a lawsuit, ordering AFACT to pay costs.
I don’t condone piracy, but the providers of internet communications should not be held responsible if their customers download or distribute copied material.
Movie companies should pay more attention to why people download and distribute movies illegally – and how they could make downloads available legitimately at a fair price. This is the only way to reduce piracy.
| iPad: Will it or won't it? | General | 6/02/2010 |
Click here for printer friendly version
(CTRL-click to view without leaving Andrew's Place.)
There’s been plenty of talk about the iPad, due for release in a few months. But will it be the hit that the iPhone is? To be honest, I don’t know. In fact, anyone who makes a prediction (and there have been plenty) really has no idea. People claim they know what will happen without having even seen let alone used the device. I have only seen one genuine review, which was actually quite favourable.
Many have predicted that it won’t be a success due to the limitations – no USB, no camera, etc. But the iPhone also had limitations at the start (2MP camera, no MMS, no forward-facing camera) and look at where it is now! It still has some limitations, but has grown to be one of the most popular phones on the planet.
What makes the iPhone so attractive? For me it’s the ease of use and availability of applications. Sure other phones may have more features when you put them side-by-side, but nothing to date has matched the simple and intuitive interface of the iPhone. The simplicity extends to applications, both in functionality and availability. No hunting around the net for a decent application. They’re all in the one place – all checked and verified not to screw up your phone. There are a lot of knockers of the App Store, but it is one of the major factors that lead to the iPhone’s success. Some applications are free – some are affordable at just a few dollars. This is the way software should be!
But will the success extend to the iPad? Apple is actually playing it safe. They have essentially created an oversized iTouch/iPhone in order to test the market. If it is a success, I’m sure we’ll see more invested to further develop the iPad.
Strangely enough, its success will have little to do with how useful it actually is. If it takes off, everyone will want one.
So let’s see what happens over the next few months. It could be a hit! It could fail! It will be interesting to see how it goes.
| Go Card - could it have been more botched? | Queensland | 24/01/2010 |
Click here for printer friendly version
The recent fare increases and change of fare structure are meant to "encourage" commuters to use the Go Card system - a system that has been plagued by delays, errors and criticism of fare structures.
Let’s take a look at the history of the Go Card’s implementation to truly understand how much of a debacle the whole thing was.
With the announcement of integrated ticketing back in 1998, The Minister for Transport at the time indicated that it would lead to "fully integrated ticketing... On smartcard technology, by July 2001. (1)
In 2002, the premier announced that a new ticketing system incorporating "state-of-the-art 'smart card' technology" would be introduced "by the middle of 2004". (2) A preferred tenderer was selected which was "proof the Government is on track to launch the new system in mid-2004. (3)
In 2003, the Queensland Government signed a 12-year contract to deliver a "Smart Card" ticketing system for public transport in South East Queensland. (4)
In 2005, public trials commenced in a limited pilot program. (5) Phase 2 of the pilot was supposed to commence in September 2005, but it did not commence until July 2006. (6)
During 2005, equipment started appearing at train stations adorned with stickers indicating that the smart card system would be introduced in 2006. (The system wasn’t launched until early 2008.)
During 2007 (prior to the launch), several concerns were raised. Fares were not capped at daily, weekly or monthly rates, which meant that they would be more expensive under the new system. In an attempt to alleviate concerns, the Minister for Transport announced the original Frequent User Scheme in November 2007, under which "commuters who travel on public transport to and from work five days a week, their cost for this will be the same as on a paper ten-trip ticket." (7) The Minister’s wording was incorrect and he should have said "weekly ticket". The scheme did nothing to alleviate the concerns of commuters doing multiple trips in a single day, more than 10 trips a week (e.g. Trips within their normal zones on the weekend) or those regularly travelling more than 10 zones. In the same statement, the Minister indicated that this would be the first of a range of products. We are yet to see alternative products (other than a rehash of the existing one).
Off-peak fares were also not going to be available, potentially increasing costs for occasional users.
Concerns were raised over the equipment, in particular the "fogging up" of the displays in wet weather. (8) This has never been addressed and equipment is still suffering effects of wet weather to this day.
The new ticket machines (AVVM’s) were switched on. They immediately drew criticism for their lack of intuitiveness and more difficult operation when compared to the existing machines (TVM’s). TVM’s were later removed, meaning passengers had no option but to use the new machines – even if they stuck with paper tickets.
The system was finally launched in early 2008. (9) As part of the introduction, the "penalty" for those failing to touch on/off properly was reduced to $5 (or $3 for buses) instead of $10. (It was originally supposed to be $15.) The reduced penalty still applies – no doubt to reduce the number of people bothering to claim the difference when the equipment fails. This allows TransLink to publish adjustment figures (where people have requested a refund) instead of the actual number of penalty fares imposed, which has never been released. Of course, to claim a refund in the first place, the passenger has to phone the TransLink Call Centre and wait on hold before attempting to justify why he/she should receive a refund of perhaps a dollar or two. There is no simple online form to do this. Why would people even bother?
With the fare inequities and reports of failing equipment, uptake was limited. Why switch to a new system if it’s more expensive and doesn’t always work? In February 2008 (almost 12 months ago), I predicted that a "stealth" approach would be taken in order to address the fare inequities. "How they introduce the different charges between paper tickets and Go Card will be very important. If they just increase the cost of paper tickets, there will be an uproar. Instead, I think we'll see an increase across the board coinciding with the introduction of better [Frequent User] schemes for the Go Card." (10)
In August 2008, Go Card fares were adjusted so that single journeys were 20% less than single paper tickets. (11) This was mainly to appease users of 10-trip savers on buses, which were being phased out. High-zone travellers received a larger discount to address the inconsistency with weekly ticket prices for them. The Frequent User scheme was adjusted so that the discount commences after 10 trips instead of 6. Overall this did nothing to address the fare inconsistencies – with those doing more than 2 trips in a day or 10 trips in a week still paying more if using the Go Card. It also removed the incentive to travel by Public Transport every day of the week – with those travelling by Public Transport just 2 or 3 days receiving the same discount as those travelling all 5 days.
The final solution was announced in October 2009 (12) and implemented on 4 January 2010. Not only did they "just increase the cost of paper tickets", they decided to increase all prices to reduce the Government subsidy at the same time. (My other article explains my thoughts about that.)
So you tell me. Could the implementation of the Go Card have been more botched?
| That’s not "fare"! | Queensland | 24/01/2010 |
Click here for printer friendly version
Anyone living in Brisbane or parts of South East Queensland covered by the TransLink Transit Authority for public transport would only be too aware of the dramatic price increases that commenced on 4 January 2010, particularly for those choosing to purchase paper tickets.
The TransLink Transit Authority increased fares across the board to reduce the Government subsidy. At the same time they increased the price of paper tickets compared to the Go Card. This double-whammy has resulted in a major uproar from commuters across the South East. The Authority also announced that paper tickets would be phased out altogether by 2011. On the positive side, Go Card users would finally receive off-peak discounts.
All of this has put the focus on the Go Card, as though it alone is responsible for the fare increases. It is certainly the reason why there is such a huge jump in the cost of paper tickets – as the TTA tries to "encourage" commuters to use the Go Card before paper tickets are phased out.
The TransLink Transit Authority has had several years to determine the best strategy to phase out paper tickets. They could have come up with a far better implementation strategy.
For example, it would have been far better to stage the increase. Prices could have been raised across the board – with discounts offered for Go Card Users as part of the second stage. This means that the Go Card would be seen as "The Saviour" instead of the reason for the increases.
Instead we see price jumps of up to 40% for users of paper tickets – and people being forced to use a system that has been botched from day one.
Of course it comes with the promise of new services – but from what I understand, there will be no major train timetable update for at least another year (when some of the infrastructure projects are complete).
I understand the need to reduce the Government Subsidy in order to increase services. I also understand the desire to phase out paper tickets as much as possible. Unfortunately the Government has completely gone the wrong way about it despite the years it had to plan it. No wonder people are upset! It’s just not "fare"!
| Where does the responsibility lie? | Queensland | 24/12/2009 |
Click here for printer friendly version
Picture this. You’re driving a train – not just any train – a suburban passenger train with hundreds of people on board – most of them heading to a football match. You’re in charge of getting them safely to their destination in a timely manner.
As you go about your duties, you are advised of rocks being thrown at another train ahead, shattering a window.
As a seasoned driver, you know that a rock strike on the windscreen of a moving train could result in it shattering and projecting glass into the cabin. As you approach the area of the reported rock attacks, you pull the blind down a bit, just in case a rock strikes the windscreen.
After driving through the area with no sign of rocks or kids, you go back to driving the train normally. You’re alongside a major freeway so you dip your lights as a courtesy to drivers.
You’ve done everything right, haven’t you? Not according to a Queensland State Coroner who recently found that these actions were "dangerous" – to the point of recommending disciplinary action against the driver. This was part of the coroner’s findings in the inquest into the Inquest into the deaths of Hayden Duncan, Glen Duncan and Reginald Fisher. (Warning – some details are graphic in nature.)
The coroner made little mention of the fact that the kids should not have been on the track – or that the parents should have known where their children were.
Was it reasonable to expect the driver to perceive that the children could have been on the rail line and not see or hear the train approach? I don’t think so.
What has our society turned into – where everyone is responsible for everyone else’s actions? Large organisations like Queensland Rail must have policies in place to account for idiots and delinquents.
It’s time that "personal responsibility" was taken into consideration and that "victims" were held accountable for their own actions.
| "Failing" Government but who do you turn to? | Queensland | 1/11/2009 |
Click here for printer friendly version
Today’s Sunday Mail reports an all-time low approval rating for Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, of just 30 per cent.
As usual, the LNP supporters post comments berating Labor. They cannot see how people could have actually voted for Anna Bligh. But what alternative did we have? Lawrence Springborg?
I, like all voters who actually decide who wins elections, do not support any political party. In fact, people who blindly support a particular party are antidemocratic. If everyone was like this, there would be no need for elections.
When election time comes, I will weigh up what the incumbent party has achieved (or not) against what the opposition is offering. The latter has been sadly lacking.
If the LNP was serious about winning the next election, it would come up with REAL policies and plans to change for the better. While they're simply "opposing" everything the government decides, they are doing nothing for their election chances or the future of this state.
The reason Kevin Rudd won the federal election was because he clearly outlined his policies and plans for the future. He also (probably more importantly) connected with the people.
Anna might have a low approval rating right now, but unless a serious contender is found in the LNP, when it comes to election day, people may have no one else to turn to.
(Photo taken from The Premier's Website, current at time of writing.)