Parental Controls

Does anyone know if PlusNet are planning on implementing network based parental controls like Sky has?

I don't know, but I've posted a bit about Sky's set up here: http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Broadband-Setup-Connecti...

Cheers, good point about blocking the outbound DNS. I just read in a BBC article that BT and Virgin will be introducing their own filters in the next 2 months, as PlusNet are owned by BT maybe they will get the same filter.

Wont non-new customers get their control systems much later. I think it's around a year later...

Existing Sky customers can access the Sky Broadband shield and configure it how they want now

Hopefully never As some of us are adults and don't need or want such filters see the rev k rants about this camerloon nonsense re web blocking, i agree with him the man talks a lot of sense unlike our policitians,
And IMO the buck stops with parents what the children see and do on the internet it's up to them to montitor what they see & do or implement filtering on the own local networks, It's not the job of the state or ISP's to nanny everyone And i sincerely hope that the associated costs incurred to ISP's in deploying such filters isn't going to be passed on to those customers who do not use or need/want them , let those who wanted or use them pay for them

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 17-Nov-13 21:17:37)

They are part of the big 4 though... The test bed for Government changes, if you will...

Edited by deleted (Sun 17-Nov-13 22:33:45)

Tell that to the Government...

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Hopefully never As some of us are adults and don't need or want such filters

Then you can turn it off.

Parents should be given the power to restrict their children's access to the internet if they see fit, as long as adults can turn it off (which they can).

It should always be off by default , and once again those that dont want or need it should not be expected to subsidise those few who want it

Have done so along with all the other people who signed the petition 'Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content' which has so far has gained 37,657 signatures

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 17-Nov-13 23:22:18)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

It should always be off by default

It is. But even if it isn't big deal if you have to log into the control panel and press a button which says "switch off".

It's a thorny question - where does state intervention stop and parental responsibility start?

It's already common knowledge that filtering systems have limited success. Making an ISP have some filter will probably give parents a false sense of security, when in reality there will be ways around filters and those will be openly available to all teens who choose to dig a little, and even those who don't, if a more 'determined' friend visits and alters the laptop settings.

Some of the campaigners have a far more restrictive motivation than just blocking pornography, and some future government, if blocking ever came under their control, could use it to limit any activity which complains about their activities.

I can see the need for education (of parents, as well as youngsters) about the internet "good and bad", but see ISP/national filters as the wrong way to do this. NetIntelligence and others provide software solutions.

It was good to see that Mumsnet chose to withdraw their support for filtering, and a shame, in my view, that this is still going ahead. I hope Plus.Net won't make any changes.

There are "clean feed" solutions which parents could opt for (at relatively high cost, the last one I saw), but why should all customers have to fund such filtering when not all customers would wish to have any filtering? (Yes, any costs will be passed on, if not as a surplus fee, then I suspect in poorer customer service and other 'cost saving' measures which the ISPs choose to implement. Let's face it, some get a lot of criticism on CS already!)

All this does is give people the option of a filter, if you don't want it simply turn it off. No big deal. It is not the government taking over parental responsibility, it's just making things easier and more effective. If there is any extra cost passed on it's just one of those things you got to accept. Part of a responsible society.

Clearly we will need to "agree to differ" - I don't see the adoption of a flawed method as doing anything more than waste money, and give false security to less knowledgeable parents.

Perhaps a member of Plus.Net staff can give us whether any filtering is currently planned.

I've no doubt that adding another level of equipment to filter millions of requests won't come very cheap.

Also, if PN does have plans to "offer" a filter, can those who opt-out before they start work on it, be guaranteed a price freeze so they don't have to pay for it ?

They should make it like they did with the "Pro" feature as a Add-On, which if you want you pay extra for.

The other thing is camerloon is said to be spending a sum of £25 million on this campain Where is the money comming from ?
Also As said it should an addon thats available for a fee to those that want filtering , and that way we all dont end up paying for it

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 18-Nov-13 16:17:27)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

The other thing is camerloon is said to be spending a sum of £25 million on this campain Where is the money comming from ?

I thought one of the web sites reported the funding as being from BT and VM.

Teaching parents a bit more about (a) what there is online (shock! horror!) and then (b) how most filtering / "blocking" is probably less than 80% effective, might get some better attention from parents, and force more discussion of things that their offspring may find, from gambling, slimming, suicide related sites right through to pornography, soft and hard...

It's why I mentioned NetIntelligence as a firm creating a filtering solution (they allow various options to be tailored, unlike this variable filtering {given that different ISPs will manage things differently!}).

In reply to a post by ultra:

It's why I mentioned NetIntelligence as a firm creating a filtering solution (they allow various options to be tailored, unlike this variable filtering {given that different ISPs will manage things differently!}).

Sky's system seems quite customisable.

http://i40.tinypic.com/21320ph.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/1zdbwg6.png

(Note the "switch off" button in the second image for the worried amongst you)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Sky's system seems quite customisable.

Pretty much what OpenDNS has offered for a very long time.

In reply to a post by kasg:

Pretty much what OpenDNS has offered for a very long time.

Yep, the Sky system has a few advantages though. Probably the main one is that there is no need to run a dynamic IP address update client.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yep, the Sky system has a few advantages though. Probably the main one is that there is no need to run a dynamic IP address update client.

Which I don't need to worry about, as I have a static IP address

In reply to a post by kasg:

Which I don't need to worry about, as I have a static IP address

Always helps! Sadly the majority of home connections are dynamic though.

Where is the money comming from ?

Tory party funds offshore accounts?

Yes, I do agree education is the most important thing but I think a optional filter is also a useful tool for parents.

I have not really tested a parental filter so I admit I do not know how effective it is and what its limitations are.. perhaps you can tell me what is flawed about it? Assuming you can block usenet, torrents/peer to peer and other similar things.

The problem with filters is they may block legitimate sites.

In the case of T-Mobile, if you turn the filters off your home screen then gets filled with porn adverts.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

In the case of T-Mobile, if you turn the filters off your home screen then gets filled with porn adverts.

Huh? I've never seen a "porn advert" on my "home screen", filters or no filters. Dare I ask what your "home screen" is?

Edited by kasg (Tue 19-Nov-13 19:30:12)

That does seem an odd thing to say too.

The filters do a reasonable job and the network level ones are the simplest to use, the Sky one is nice as there is a blacklist and whitelist exception list option. So if you want to block everything, but open up a site for a teenager to do homework you can.

The Sky system also makes it clear if a site is blocked, so then people can talk about it and then the lists be rejigged.

Turning off/on categories is simple enough just log into the portal and change the setting, which lots of the press coverage is not mentioning, reading them it is as if once you set the levels you can never remove them.