Australian Communications and Media Authority: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:32, 18 March 2009 edit220.233.72.39 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:48, 18 March 2009 edit undo203.173.41.22 (talk) Undid revision 278050189 by 220.233.72.39 (talk) -- please do not remove contentious link without discussing it first.Next edit →
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the federal government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies. The regulator has been criticised for its role in examining internet censorship in Australia and how it is enabled and might further be enabled<ref name = "EFA overview"></ref>. Particular criticism has been leveled at the regulator's technical understanding of what is involved overall in internet regulation and censorship.<ref name="EFA"></ref>.		Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the federal government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies. The regulator has been criticised for its role in examining internet censorship in Australia and how it is enabled and might further be enabled<ref name = "EFA overview"></ref>. Particular criticism has been leveled at the regulator's technical understanding of what is involved overall in internet regulation and censorship.<ref name="EFA"></ref>.

	On 10 March 2009, ACMA issued the ] web-hosting company, Bulletproof Networks, with an "interim link-deletion notice"<ref></ref><ref></ref> due to its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, not deleting a link to a page on an ] web site <ref></ref><ref name="Somebody"></ref>. The web page, which is the 6th of a series of pages featuring images of aborted fetuses, had been submitted to ACMA, who determined it was potential prohibited content, by the user whose post on Whirlpool containing ACMA's reply was later subject to the link-deletion notice.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref name="Somebody" /> This came with an $11,000 per day fine if the take down was not actioned after 24 hours. In order for other URLs contained on the same website to be 'prohibited', a separate complaint would need to be submitted and reviewed by the ACMA.{{Fact\|date=March 2009}} <!-- mostly true, as far as I know, so not challenging this. but it should be cited. There have been senate discussions which are documented online that point this out, and the ACMA guidelines would also probably state it. However I believe the ACMA are empowered to initiate their own investigations, and as they are secret it is difficult to know if other pages were added or if they intend to do it -->		On 10 March 2009, ACMA issued the ] web-hosting company, Bulletproof Networks, with an "interim link-deletion notice"<ref></ref><ref></ref> due to its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, not deleting a link to a page on an ] web site <ref></ref><ref name="Somebody"></ref>. The web page, <nowiki>http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm</nowiki><ref></ref>, which is the 6th of a series of pages featuring images of aborted fetuses, had been submitted to ACMA, who determined it was potential prohibited content, by the user whose post on Whirlpool containing ACMA's reply was later subject to the link-deletion notice.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref name="Somebody" /> This came with an $11,000 per day fine if the take down was not actioned after 24 hours. In order for other URLs contained on the same website to be 'prohibited', a separate complaint would need to be submitted and reviewed by the ACMA.{{Fact\|date=March 2009}} <!-- mostly true, as far as I know, so not challenging this. but it should be cited. There have been senate discussions which are documented online that point this out, and the ACMA guidelines would also probably state it. However I believe the ACMA are empowered to initiate their own investigations, and as they are secret it is difficult to know if other pages were added or if they intend to do it -->

	==Staff==		==Staff==

Revision as of 07:48, 18 March 2009

Australian Communications and Media Authority is an Australian government agency whose main roles are to regulate broadcasting, radiocommunications and telecommunications, and to represent Australian interests in international communications matters. It also has a role in regulating Internet content standards.

On 1 July 2005, the Australian Communications and Media Authority replaced two former government agencies — the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and the Australian Communications Authority (ACA). The ACA in turn came into existence on 1 July 1997 as the merger of the Spectrum Management Agency (SMA) and AUSTEL .

Administratively ACMA is part of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). It is an independent authority with a board of five members.

Powers and funding

It exercises powers under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (in relation to broadcasting) and the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 and other related legislation (in relation to telecommunications).

ACMA works with the communications industry to achieve active self-regulation by industry and companies, while ensuring compliance with licence conditions, codes and standards. The ACMA monitors the effect of regulations to ensure they are responsive to the community’s needs.

Though ACMA is funded through the federal budget, it also collects substantial revenue on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. Revenue is collected through telecommunications carrier and radiocommunications licence fees and charges, as well as through charges on telecommunications numbers. ACMA also collects revenue from price-based allocation of spectrum.

Main functions

In respect of telecommunications, the stated aims of the ACMA are to:

Work to ensure quality communications services are available.
Represent Australia in international regulation of communications (see International Telecommunications Union)
Manage access to the radiofrequency spectrum through radiocommunications licensing
Resolve competing demands for spectrum through price-based allocation methods
Regulates use of the radio-frequency spectrum and helps in minimising radiocommunications interference
License telecommunications carriers and ensure compliance with licence conditions and carriage service provider rules
Regulate industry compliance with mandatory standards and voluntary codes of practice
Administer legislative provisions relating to powers and immunities of carriers in constructing telecommunications facilities
Monitor compliance with consumer safeguards and service guarantees
Administer universal service initiatives
Report and inform the Australian community about communications regulation and industry performance
Maintain and administer the Telecommunications Numbering Plan (for telephones)
Inform industry and consumers about communications regulation

In respect of broadcasting:

develops licence area plans, and issuing and renewing licences for television and radio broadcasting in a range of licence classes including commercial, community, subscription, datacasting and narrowcasting;
administers the ownership and control rules for broadcasting services
oversees program content by investigating complaints about breaches of industry codes of practice, as well as complaints about the national broadcasters (Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service)
administers the introduction of digital TV and radio

Internet censorship and criticisms

This article's "criticism" or "controversy" section may compromise the article's neutrality. Please help rewrite or integrate negative information to other sections through discussion on the talk page.

Further information: Internet censorship in Australia

Since January 2000, internet content considered offensive or illegal has been subject to a statutory scheme administered by ACMA.

Established under Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the online content scheme evolved from a tradition of Australian content regulation in broadcasting and other entertainment media. This tradition embodies the principle that – while adults should be free to see, hear and read what they want – children should be protected from material that may be unsuitable for (or harmful to) them, and everyone should be protected from material that is highly offensive.

The online content scheme seeks to achieve these objectives by a number of means such as complaint investigation processes, government and industry collaboration, and community awareness and empowerment. While administration of the scheme is the responsibility of ACMA, the principle of ‘co-regulation’ underpinning the scheme reflects parliament’s intention that government, industry and the community each plays a role in managing internet safety issues in Australia.

Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the federal government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies. The regulator has been criticised for its role in examining internet censorship in Australia and how it is enabled and might further be enabled. Particular criticism has been leveled at the regulator's technical understanding of what is involved overall in internet regulation and censorship..

On 10 March 2009, ACMA issued the Australian web-hosting company, Bulletproof Networks, with an "interim link-deletion notice" due to its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, not deleting a link to a page on an anti-abortion web site . The web page, http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm, which is the 6th of a series of pages featuring images of aborted fetuses, had been submitted to ACMA, who determined it was potential prohibited content, by the user whose post on Whirlpool containing ACMA's reply was later subject to the link-deletion notice. This came with an $11,000 per day fine if the take down was not actioned after 24 hours. In order for other URLs contained on the same website to be 'prohibited', a separate complaint would need to be submitted and reviewed by the ACMA.

Staff

ACMA has about 550 staff in offices across Australia. It has central offices in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, and regional offices and operations centres around Australia.

References

External links

Categories:

Misplaced Pages